Al-Zarqawi Killed: Milestone or symbolic victory?

[southside grabowski]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198651,00.html

One down, thousands to go.

[Outsider]

For those who don't believe a word on Faux news:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13197560/
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08150614.htm
...
just check news.google.com ;)

[dmz]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Edit: I think this means -- or at least would lead me to believe -- that some indigenous element/person/mood wanted him gone. When you consider that -- for years -- that all anyone who knew of his whereabouts needed to do was pick up a phone, it's pretty impressive that he lasted as long as he did.

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by dmz
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Edit: I think this means -- or at least would lead me to believe -- that some indigenous element/person/mood wanted him gone.

To make room for the next leader?

The prob is the WH will say for eternity that this was a major victory, but in reality it probably didn't do anything and is actually doing exactly that which we are angry at him for doing: killing.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
To make room for the next leader?

The prob is the WH will say for eternity that this was a major victory, but in reality it probably didn't do anything and is actually doing exactly that which we are angry at him for doing: killing.

We killed him. We're no better than the terrorists!

[dmz]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
To make room for the next leader?

The prob is the WH will say for eternity that this was a major victory, but in reality it probably didn't do anything and is actually doing exactly that which we are angry at him for doing: killing.
That's why I think the only way that this could be an important event is if his own people/community turned him in. There are plenty more where he came from.

[Relic]

Ah they finally took his body out of the freezer, I was wondering when they were going to plant him. I guess they had nothing else to distract us with after the gay marriage debacle. We'll probably see Bin Ladens body in the Autumn.

[BRussell]

Clearly the US military is intolerant of Zarqawi's religious beliefs.

[Relic]

Originally posted by BRussell
Clearly the US military is intolerant of Zarqawi's religious beliefs.

What the hole thou shalt not kill thing.:)

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Relic
Ah they finally took his body out of the freezer, I was wondering when they were going to plant him. I guess they had nothing else to distract us with after the gay marriage debacle. We'll probably see Bin Ladens body in the Autumn.

Well, I guess someone had to say it. My money was on SJO...

[Relic]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, I guess someone had to say it. My money was on SJO...

He he, yea me to but I'd thought since no one else posted it I'd start the conspiracy giberish.

[sammi jo]

Good morning children.

:rolleyes:

I guess killing a militant is something that is easier for BushCorp drones to justify, than walking into houses and murdering Iraqi families in cold blood. But I was only obeying orders. *Clicks heels*

[segovius]

Anyone know which Zarqawi is dead?

This one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41740000/jpg/_41740158_video_ap203b.jpg

This one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41739000/jpg/_41739518_zarqawisheikh_afp220.jpg

Or this one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41739000/jpg/_41739528_zarqawispecs_ap300.jpg

Or maybe even this one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41739000/jpg/_41739530_zarqawius_afp220.jpg

How many are still out there? Maybe Moe was right - looks like there still are thousands to go.....

[maimezvous]

I hope that this helps gas prices a bit, I need to fill my tank and $2.94 is not what I want to pay. In my econ class today we were forced to watch Fox News, I wish we would have been able to choose some other station, but it seemed as if the government was really playing this "victory" up. What kind of victory is it if another leader just like him is going to most likely take his place?

[Aurora]

You all are pathetic, this guy has beheaded people, murdered over and over and over and you act like the U.S. was the bad guys and he was a good guy. You guys are screwed up big time. Im glad they taught him and his fanatics a lesson. You want to live by the sword then you are going to die by the sword. He was just another murdering bastard.

[segovius]

Originally posted by maimezvous
What kind of victory is it if another leader just like him is going to most likely take his place?

Victory for totalitarianism and the forces of fascism on the home front?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by maimezvous
What kind of victory is it if another leader just like him is going to most likely take his place?

I have never really understood the logic of this kind of argument. It is used in the movie "Munich" too.

[New]

Originally posted by segovius
Anyone know which Zarqawi is dead?

This one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41740000/jpg/_41740158_video_ap203b.jpg

This one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41739000/jpg/_41739518_zarqawisheikh_afp220.jpg

Or this one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41739000/jpg/_41739528_zarqawispecs_ap300.jpg

Or maybe even this one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41739000/jpg/_41739530_zarqawius_afp220.jpg

How many are still out there? Maybe Moe was right - looks like there still are thousands to go.....

I actually think this looks like the same guy. same lips, eyebrows and scar on the cheek.

[segovius]

Originally posted by New
I actually think this looks like the same guy. same lips, eyebrows and scar on the cheek.

Me too actually - I realized it was the same guy after I posted it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by New
I actually think this looks like the same guy. same lips, eyebrows and scar on the cheek.

Pretty amazing how different he can look (at a casual glance) though.

[maimezvous]

Originally posted by segovius
Victory for totalitarianism and the forces of fascism on the home front?

I agree with both you and Chris. I do think that this was a good thing that happened, but as I was watching the news the commentators were saying that this was a huge and great victory. What I don't understand is how can this be a great victory, if he will be replaced? Maybe I just wonder this because I was watching Fox, and by no way was it even close to objective news.

[hardhead]

Pulling him out of the freezer... heh, as devious as our government may be at times to promote, extend or cover up it's activities, I believe they probably nailed Zarqawi on this mission.

Later on this evening, I will toast to his death, with a shot of good single malt, as if it were his blood.

A great victory? Bullsh*t... Another religious fanatic buttwipe will step into his sandles.

It doesn't change my opinion that the Bushites chose the wrong war at the wrong time. Remember, we KNOW where the WMD are, they are north and south and... ah, what a load crap has been layed on us. Just as I have been harping on from the beginning of the Iraq invasion, we never finished up in Afghanistan.

[groverat]

This is completely meaningless.
Just more death in a cycle of death this will neither stop nor curtail.

I'm not upset that he's dead, but I really don't give a damn.

Also, where is the guy responsible for killing 3000 US civilians? Where is he? Why the hell don't we have him?

[progmac]

my intellect recognizes the importance of having this guy dead, as does my instinct for revenge. iraq is a mess, but i can't imagine pulling out at this stage (i'm for drastically increasing troop numbers, but that's another story).

but. but. it sickens me to see what we've got ourselves into and that we, a civilized country, celebrate murder. yes, even if we murder the most wretched guy on the earth, it seems like the path his life took is something to mourn, and his death not something to celebrate.

[BRussell]

One of the side-issues here is that there have been a lot of reports just in the past few days about how Zarqawi was pissing off al qaeda and Iran and they had a hit out on him. Example. (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060607.aspx)
Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda's efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future.
I wonder if the other whackos whacked him by tipping off the US military.

[groverat]

It's not so much death conceptually, it's the picture of a dead face everywhere that has people frothing with joy. It's bizarre and disturbing.

We haven't won anything. We haven't really made the world a better place. This isn't Hitler, this is some jack-ass terrorist type who will probably be replaced without a sweat, it's not like his underlings are only loyal to him and not the insane cause for which they fight.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[DanMacMan]

Remember when former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright predicted that Bush would "unveil" Bin Laden's capture right before the Nov 2004 election? I cannot bring myself to believe that such a thing would happen.

Originally posted by hardhead
Pulling him out of the freezer... heh, as devious as our government may be at times to promote, extend or cover up it's activities, I believe they probably nailed Zarqawi on this mission.

Later on this evening, I will toast to his death, with a shot of good single malt, as if it were his blood.

A great victory? Bullsh*t... Another religious fanatic buttwipe will step into his sandles.

It doesn't change my opinion that the Bushites chose the wrong war at the wrong time. Remember, we KNOW where the WMD are, they are north and south and... ah, what a load crap has been layed on us. Just as I have been harping on from the beginning of the Iraq invasion, we never finished up in Afghanistan.

[sammi jo]

More than 75 insurgent groups have been recognized in Iraq, yet we hear of it as "the insurgency" as it they are all marching in lockstep. This is not the case at all, but just more typical "black n white" type of portrayal by the media, to present an oversimplified, inaccurate but 'unified message', exactly as the Bush crew would want. Zarqawi was but just one honcho in one group amongst many. His death is no huge deal as regard political stability in Iraq.

This is about political capital and investment in Zarqawi as a threat, whether real or imaginary.

(1) publicize the presence of "al Qa'ida in Iraq",
(2) select a honcho who's involved in that group
(3) amplify both man and group way out of all proportion to their actual status either as a terrorist threat, or having influence in Iraqi affairs, by judicious use of the media.
(4) bogeyman is created.
(5) continued media attention, regular reference to his name, he assumes some kind of legendary status
(6) suddenly he's killed in a "long planned operation". Kudos to the US military and the Bush Administration for a job well done.

Political capital generated, political capital spent. It has been spent at an opportune time, diverting attention away from gnarly items in the recent forefront of public scrutiny.

Incidentally, there have been some 1400 civilian deaths reported by the Baghdad Morgue alone in the past month alone. Zarqawi and associates probably have had but a very minor part in this ongoing killing spree; Zarqawi himself has probably been holed up for a long time in 'safe houses' etc. spending most of his time avoiding capture or being killed.

His death is going to make no difference to anything much of importance in the Middle East.This is fluff. Anyone recall how BushCorp and their media drones announced that "the insurgency" would fall apart following the capture of Saddam Hussein?

I shed no tears regarding the death of this extremist rightwing religious fundamentalist jerkwad. There are quite a few more of a similar mindset who, if removed from society, the world would be a safer and more stable place.

[backtomac]

I think many underestimate the difficulty in replacing a leader like Al-Zaraqawi. They don't just fall off the truck. Getting people to risk their lives for you is not easy and people underestimate the impact of individuals.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by groverat
This is completely meaningless.
Just more death in a cycle of death this will neither stop nor curtail.

I'm not upset that he's dead, but I really don't give a damn.

Also, where is the guy responsible for killing 3000 US civilians? Where is he? Why the hell don't we have him?

If you're thinking of Osama bin Laden, he's almost certainly DEAD (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html). Fox reported on his death shortly after 9-11, which was a definite blooper, since a dead bin Laden cannot be promoted as the big boogeyman who's "out to get us".

[NOFEER]

Originally posted by SDW2001
We killed him. We're no better than the terrorists!

it's all our (the usa) fault....it's always our fault we are the great evil and we should be ashamed of our selves.....

as far as being better or no better let's try making another thousand of these terrorists martyrs. hmmm lets make some more magic.

[segovius]

Originally posted by backtomac
I think many underestimate the difficulty in replacing a leader like Al-Zaraqawi. They don't just fall off the truck. Getting people to risk their lives for you is not easy and people underestimate the impact of individuals.

But then when necessary it could also be "kamikaze terrorists are everywhere - they all want to die and get 72 virgins and they're in your neighbourhood NOW sucka.....".

Depends on what facts you're trying to refute I suppose.

At the end of the day they'll hype another badman. THese bogeys have limited shelf-life - need someone new to keep the prolls in line.

Even sheep need another threat than just 'wolf, wolf' from time to time.....

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
We killed him. We're no better than the terrorists!

Stop making shit up.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Aurora
You all are pathetic, this guy has beheaded people, murdered over and over and over and you act like the U.S. was the bad guys and he was a good guy. You guys are screwed up big time. Im glad they taught him and his fanatics a lesson. You want to live by the sword then you are going to die by the sword. He was just another murdering bastard.

Sarcasm flies over one's head. :lol:

[southside grabowski]

Maybe the pictures are of a wax model?

[Northgate]

Since we've hung Clinton out to dry for not killing BinLaden when he had the chance, don't you think we ought to apply the same to Bush for not taking Al-Zarqawi when he had the chance *before* the start of the war?

I'm just askin'.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Northgate
Since we've hung Clinton out to dry for not killing BinLaden when he had the chance, don't you think we ought to apply the same to Bush for not taking Al-Zarqawi when he had the chance *before* the start of the war?

I'm just askin'.

Apparently they had him under surveillance for 6 weeks this time so there was a good chance they could have messed up again - of course no-one would have heard anything if so but......

And that brings up another point - in 6 weeks, why did they not send ground troops to arrest him? US justice I guess......

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Northgate
Since we've hung Clinton out to dry for not killing BinLaden when he had the chance, don't you think we ought to apply the same to Bush for not taking Al-Zarqawi when he had the chance *before* the start of the war?

I'm just askin'.

No no no. Clinton, as Rush Limbaugh said a number of times, bombed an aspirin factory in an attempt to distract attention from Monica.

Sheesh. ;)

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
And that brings up another point - in 6 weeks, why did they not send ground troops to arrest him? US justice I guess......

Might be the same reason we didn't let the Nazis know the instant we broke the Enigma code.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Might be the same reason we didn't let the Nazis know the instant we broke the Enigma code.

So the Nazis couldn't move to a more secure encryption system?

That's why they didn't arrest Zarqawi :???: :err:

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
So the Nazis couldn't move to a more secure encryption system?

That's why they didn't arrest Zarqawi :???: :err:

So they could watch them at work. You would probably want to watch all the comings and goings -- who was talking to whom.

Regardless, it's conjecture.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
So they could watch them at work.

Beheading people?

:err:

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Beheading people?

:err:

Oh, Puuuleez.

(I can't talk to you when your'e like this. Bye!)

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Oh, Puuuleez.

I can't talk to you when your'e like this.

:smokey:

[southside grabowski]

Days like this are very hard for the left.

[rageous]

The guy probably deserved death.

But this isn't going to change anything.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Days like this are very hard for the left.

Why?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Flounder
Why?

Because the liberal left are enamored with ultra-hardline extremist conservative fundamentalist buttwipes and terrorists/terrorist enablers? people like bin Laden, Bush, Zarqawi, Ashcroft, Zawahiri, Falwell, Atta, Zakheim etc?

Yeah, definitely. Chalk up one for the Moe the Lawn.

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by groverat
This is completely meaningless.
Just more death in a cycle of death this will neither stop nor curtail.

I'm not upset that he's dead, but I really don't give a damn.

Also, where is the guy responsible for killing 3000 US civilians? Where is he? Why the hell don't we have him?

Where's the guy responsible for killing 2486 US soldiers in Iraq, not to mention directly or indiretly causing the deaths of 40 thousand Iraqis? He's surrounded by SS guards 24 hours a day, so we know exactly where he is and we should arrest him.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Days like this are very hard for the left.

I love how you actually don't answer anyone's pertinent questions?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Days like this are very hard for the left. OK anonymoe.

[sammi jo]

If special ops had arrested him, searched the house, interrogated him and his contacts etc, they would have probably gotten lots of useful intelligence mileage out of it IF Zarqawi was of any real importance to the insurgency. He would have been held, unknown to the insurgency, and perhaps in a year or so, the news would have been filtered down to the media, when charges were brought against him and he made his first court appearance. He could have provided lots of useful intelligence, should he have been an important figure.

But no. They dropped a 500lb bomb on the house, most likely destoying intelligence, computer equipment, communications, correspondence, notes, lists, addresses, whatever, and killed the man, completely removing any possibility of getting useful information out of him.

Zarqawi sounds like more of a manufactured non-entity, or minor figure, bulled up in order to gain easy political brownie points.

I call bogus.

[ThinkingDifferent]

Originally posted by sammi jo
But no. They dropped a 500lb bomb on the house, most likely destoying intelligence, computer equipment, communications, correspondence, notes, lists, addresses, whatever, and killed the man, completely removing any possibility of getting useful information out of him.


My thoughts exactly. Besides, by dropping those 500lb bombs, they killed any chances of hollywood making a really bad made for tv movie, "The hunt for Al-Zarqawi".

[NOFEER]

he was given up by someone close to him.....get all the cellphones and harddrives from the laptops for more martyr creation

[Aries 1B]

Today I saw and spoke to five different men of the United States Armed Forces (two United States Marines and three Soldiers of the United States Army). To each of them I said the same thing that I now say to any of our Warriors, past or present, who wander though this thread:

Good Shooting!


Extremely Respectfully,

Aries 1B

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
Today I saw and spoke to five different men of the United States Armed Forces (two United States Marines and three Soldiers of the United States Army). To each of them I said the same thing that I now say to any of our Warriors, past or present, who wander though this thread:

Good Shooting!


Extremely Respectfully,

Aries 1B

I take it, that doesn't include the unarmed Iraqi men, women and children dragged out of their homes and shot because...well..for no reason other than perhaps they were in the wrong place????????

Good shooting huh? To machine gun kids to death spraying their brains all over their bedroom walls in my book is the action of cowards. FVCKING PONDSCUM COWARDS.

Just like the chickenhawks and human trash that sent them there, the top officials in that excuse-for-a-government, the Bush Adminstration.

Good shooting. Tell that to the families of 150,000+ Iraqi moms, dads and kids murdered by the US for no goddamned reason. Or perhaps the "reason" is because these unfortunate people failed to follow the same acceptable religion(s) as the NeoCons...therefore they were deemed worthy of nothing better than death by the bomb and the bullet, in the same vein as Al Qa'ida.

Good shooting, extremely respectfully. Jesus H. Christ alfvckingmighty. :mad: :mad: :no: :no: :( :(

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
Today I saw and spoke to five different men of the United States Armed Forces (two United States Marines and three Soldiers of the United States Army). To each of them I said the same thing that I now say to any of our Warriors, past or present, who wander though this thread:

Good Shooting!


Extremely Respectfully,

Aries 1B

Except there wasn't any shooting - it was a bomb :rolleyes:

But then again, maybe that's the invariable stock answer to any question, statement or observation at all: good shooting.

Extremely Disrespectfully.

:grumble:

[progmac]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Because the liberal left are enamored with ultra-hardline extremist conservative fundamentalist buttwipes and terrorists/terrorist enablers? people like bin Laden, Bush, Zarqawi, Ashcroft, Zawahiri, Falwell, Atta, Zakheim etc?

Yeah, definitely. Chalk up one for the Moe the Lawn.
what on earth are you talking about?

[segovius]

Originally posted by progmac
what on earth are you talking about?

Looks like Consensus Reality overloaded the sarcasm detectors again - happens a lot these days....

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by NOFEER
it's all our (the usa) fault....it's always our fault we are the great evil and we should be ashamed of our selves.....

You don't realize how right you are with that assessment. The US is indeed at fault for most bad things happening after ww2, and even some during and before ww2.

It's the natural problem with having responsibility and leadership, decisions have to be made that decide about life and death and that have longterm consequences, and while there are definitely some good results, there are also some very bad ones, for example:

In order to contain and eventually defeat Hitler's Germany, the US delivered massive technology and weapons, as well as financial and political support to Russia. It worked, the russians put Germany really to the test in the east and bound many german troops there in long destructive battles, but it lead to a strong Soviet-Union, communism with US-weapons and technology and knowledge, and that achieved confidence in the fight against Germany and threatened to take Europe, China and Japan.

To prevent that, the US decided to scare off the Soviet-Union with its newest created weapon, the nukes, and chose to nuke two towns in Japan, eventhough Japan was nearly ready to capitulate, and militarily already defeated.

It worked, the US could by this not only accelerate the capitulation of Japan and in better terms for the US, and therefore occupy Japan before the Soviets invaded it, but also showed off the new and exclusive nuclear power of the US, which signalled the US' willingness to take leadership in the world.

It worked though, only for a few years, maybe a decade until the Soviets managed to get enough sensitive informations from scientists working on the US-nuke-programm, to develop their own nukes. The scientists that gave away these informations did so because they feared the prospects of a single power to have that exclusive power..

That led to the coldwar-situation, and the US decided at one point to destroy the communist empire through placeholder-wars and a weapon-race-programm, but also by preventing the Soviets from gaining ground in the ressource-rich middleeast...

For that purpose the US decided to use the CIA to destabilise and ultmately dethrone any regimes or governments that they suspected would be leaning toward the Soviets in one way or the other. Westeurope and Japan were exempted since there were already US-troops and bases on the ground guaranteeing a pro-US-stance, so all the rest was up for gambling, Africa, South-asia, but espescially South- and middleamerica and the middle-east/southwestasia.

Multiple approaches were taken, coups were planned and executed, assassanations organized, carbombings.. and eventually the installation and support of dictatory-regimes that would ensure a durable pro-US-attitude, like the case of the Shah-regime in Iran and you guess it, Iraq's Baath-regime and Saddam Hussein. The idea was that these brutal dictatorregimes would ensure the identification, and killing of communists among the population of these countries.

The other approach were of course place-holder-wars, rebellions, guerillia-warfare...

One famous example is the campaign in Afghanistan. The US felt that the failure in Vietnam proved that a motivated guerillia-force can bog down even the strongest professional military with the tactics of hit, run and hide.

So the US decided to provoke the Soviet-Union to invade Afghanistan and to demoralise their army there in a long guerillia-war.

For that purpose the US worked together with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan in order to inspire and motivate the islamic world to engage in the liberation of Afghanistan.

The call for Jihad propagated through the networks of Pakistan and espescially Saudi-Arabia throughout the islamic world brought enough recruits to travel to Pakistan where they were trained and equipped with weapons. The whole campaign was financed 50/50 by the US and Saudi-Arabia, and where the official funds weren't enough the CIA leveraged more money using the timetested mean of drug-business.

During that guerillia-war, the US decided to instrumentalise radical Islamism for its goals, since it wanted more recruits and espescially more hardcore ones: The US called an american university to develop schoolbooks using the ideologies of radical Islamism and concentrating them around warfare and martyrdom. Millions of these US-brand-jihadist-schoolbooks were produced, printed and delivered to Pakistan and Afghanistan by the US, from 1984 to 1994.

It worked perfectly and it radicalised a whole new generation of fighters and the Soviets in Afghanistan and also in border Soviet-states were put much more to the test than before, but eventually they adapted by using mobile search and destroy-forces supported by heavily armed helicopters.

That was the point when the US decided to massively deliver stinger-rockets to the mujahideens, with which they could shoot down lowflying planes and helicopters. That broke the neck of the Soviet-army in Afghanistan and since the morale was already down throught the long guerillia-war, the chernobyl-catastrophy and the economic problems... they had to retreat defeated, which was of course the end of the Soviet-Union... after which one member after the next aspired to leave the Union.

And there are many more stories to be told, like the affaire of Reagan with Iran and the Contras, of course Vietnam, or the secret airbombardment of Cambodia, with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, or...

So, the question is, were all the atrocities, the games, the lies, assassinations, coups and ideological propaganda-production of the US-brand of Islamism, the secret war-campaigns... necessary and are the positive results (+communism pretty much defeated, +the Soviet-Union collapsed) worth the negative results(-the middle-east and southwest-asia are f***** up, -dictatorships supported, -fanatism legitimised and enflamed, -9/11, -economies, infrastructure and civilian casualties..)?

I for sure don't know the answer.

Nightcrawler

[southside grabowski]

Why? because it is a good time for the military and the President.

[segovius]

Apparently there were women and children in the house. Still, arrest wasn't an option - 'kill 'em all let God sort em out' has always been US policy.

Never mind that Zarqawi could have been more use alive. Never mind the risk of collateral damage.

This is the sort of maniacal brutality that needs sorting out. Unfortunately Zarqawi wasn't the one to do it (probably because he was a fictitious bogeyman entirely constructed to scare the sheep - in fact this whole deal is more like an intel hit on a patsy that has outlived his usefulness than any real operation) but someone sure as hell needs to.

And they need to do it without becoming the scum they are fighting like has happened to the Iraqi insurgents and other groups with a legitimate cause such as Baader-Meinhof.

Enough of this BS - it's time to wake up. We need a ruthless, moral and principled resistance on the ground in the west and we need it RIGHT NOW - one that will fight the Nazis we already have in power and the Nazi fundies who so badly want to take power, whatever religion they are from.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Why? because it is a good time for the military and the President.

See, there's a key difference. I (and I think the vast majority of liberals) love to see progress in Iraq. We don't get jealous just because the opposition party made something good happen. That's what conservatives do :D

P.S. We ALWYAS wish the military service men and women well. Contrary to what you may think, we're not rooting for them to die in road-side bombs.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
Apparently there were women and children in the house. Still, arrest wasn't an option - 'kill 'em all let God sort em out' has always been US policy.

Never mind that Zarqawi could have been more use alive. Never mind the risk of collateral damage.

This is the sort of maniacal brutality that needs sorting out. Unfortunately Zarqawi wasn't the one to do it (probably because he was a fictitious bogeyman entirely constructed to scare the sheep - in fact this whole deal is more like an intel hit on a patsy that has outlived his usefulness than any real operation) but someone sure as hell needs to.

And they need to do it without becoming the scum they are fighting like has happened to the Iraqi insurgents and other groups with a legitimate cause such as Baader-Meinhof.

Enough of this BS - it's time to wake up. We need a ruthless, moral and principled resistance on the ground in the west and we need it RIGHT NOW - one that will fight the Nazis we already have in power and the Nazi fundies who so badly want to take power, whatever religion they are from.



Ground approach to capture would have had no element of surprise and he would have escaped. There are reports he had not yet expired when the troops found him.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Flounder
See, there's a key difference. I (and I think the vast majority of liberals) love to see progress in Iraq. We don't get jealous just because the opposition party made something good happen. That's what conservatives do :D

True but there is also another factor: most sane people (and some liberals and even wingers actually are) realize one thing - that this administration cannot stop lying through its teeth and has absolutely zero integrity, principles or morals.

Hence if they say something - anything - then the chances are very, very high that it bears no relation whatsoever to anything approximating the truth of the situation.

In the present case expect some variant of the following to soon hit the blogosphere and (maybe) even mainstream news:

Zarqawi died a while back (many newspaper and web reports for those who can be bothered with the tiresome research).

The incident under discussion was just another stray bomb that killed women and kids. Just another day. Only right now in the wake of the recent massacre scandals (again - the tip of a very large serious of icebergs of routine abuse) it is not 'politically expedient' to have another load of dead civilians to answer for.

Enter dead Zarqawi.

If he had really been there they would have arrested him for torture, a kangaroo court a la Saddam and continued gloating to 'catapult the propaganda'.

You don't drag pristine bodies out of houses hit with that kind of ordnance.

And you don't find a 'treasure trove' of top secret terror plans in the rubble - even if Zarqawi was stupid enough to run a kind of 'terrorist's Library of Alexandria'.

And still no-one is talking about the dead women and kids.

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
There are reports he had not yet expired when the troops found him.

Obviously- having had him under surveillance for six weeks - one would arrest him before launching a 500lb bomb up his harris.

Kind of as a means of, you know, being ABLE to arrest him which is what we're talking about.

I think I'm starting to see some of the reasons why you are an armchair General rather than actually out there at the front helping with Military strategy.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
Obviously- having had him under surveillance for six weeks - one would arrest him before launching a 500lb bomb up his harris.

Kind of as a means of, you know, being ABLE to arrest him which is what we're talking about.

I think I'm starting to see some of the reasons why you are an armchair General rather than actually out there at the front helping with Military strategy.

This way we avoided injury to our people. Do you think that Al-Zarqawi would have gone peacefully if they attempted to arrest him?

[Bergermeister]

... and we showed that we are no better than he was and lose our moral authority. We kill to stop people from killing. Wow.

Part of the point of surveillance is to discover ways of defeating his defence system, which likely was not that large so as not to tip off the casual observer. Special Ops could then have rather easily figured out some way to take him out without much risk to our forces. The ease with which Iraqi and US forces eventually reached the bodies shows that there were very few if any guards around the house, something that would have been well known to the US forces guiding the bombing run from the ground.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Obviously- having had him under surveillance for six weeks - one would arrest him before launching a 500lb bomb up his harris.

Kind of as a means of, you know, being ABLE to arrest him which is what we're talking about.

I think I'm starting to see some of the reasons why you are an armchair General rather than actually out there at the front helping with Military strategy.

...and if you really want to get bent out of shape, think about all the ice/falafel vendors who were killed, and roadside bombs planted while we watched his operation for those six weeks.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
This way we avoided injury to our people. Do you think that Al-Zarqawi would have gone peacefully if they attempted to arrest him? You've seen COPS, anonymoe. How many criminals go peacefully when being arrested? Why do you underestimate our troops so much?

[DanMacMan]

nypost.com/img/front060906.gif

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
I think I'm starting to see some of the reasons why you are an armchair General rather than actually out there at the front helping with Military strategy.

Who is the "arm chair general" here?

Originally posted by segovius
Apparently they had him under surveillance for 6 weeks this time so there was a good chance they could have messed up again - of course no-one would have heard anything if so but......

And that brings up another point - in 6 weeks, why did they not send ground troops to arrest him? US justice I guess......

Originally posted by sammi jo
If special ops had arrested him, searched the house, interrogated him and his contacts etc, they would have probably gotten lots of useful intelligence mileage out of it IF Zarqawi was of any real importance to the insurgency. He would have been held, unknown to the insurgency, and perhaps in a year or so, the news would have been filtered down to the media, when charges were brought against him and he made his first court appearance. He could have provided lots of useful intelligence, should he have been an important figure.

But no. They dropped a 500lb bomb on the house, most likely destoying intelligence, computer equipment, communications, correspondence, notes, lists, addresses, whatever, and killed the man, completely removing any possibility of getting useful information out of him.

Zarqawi sounds like more of a manufactured non-entity, or minor figure, bulled up in order to gain easy political brownie points.

Originally posted by segovius
Apparently there were women and children in the house. Still, arrest wasn't an option - 'kill 'em all let God sort em out' has always been US policy.

Never mind that Zarqawi could have been more use alive. Never mind the risk of collateral damage.

Originally posted by Bergermeister
Part of the point of surveillance is to discover ways of defeating his defence system, which likely was not that large so as not to tip off the casual observer. Special Ops could then have rather easily figured out some way to take him out without much risk to our forces. The ease with which Iraqi and US forces eventually reached the bodies shows that there were very few if any guards around the house, something that would have been well known to the US forces guiding the bombing run from the ground.

Of course...if they had made the attempt to arrest him, and he escaped...all we would hear is whining that they didn't just kill him when they had the chance.

BTW...what makes you all assume that they haven't "had" him in the past, tried to arrest him and he's escaped in the past, so, in other words, they tried your tactics and failed?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
BTW...what makes you all assume that they haven't "had" him in the past, tried to arrest him and he's escaped in the past, so, in other words, they tried your tactics and failed? Who's to say super intelligent monkeys haven't taken over the military dressed in human skins and their diet is so specific that they can only eat the liver an kidneys of arab terrorists?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Outsider
Who's to say super intelligent monkeys haven't taken over the military dressed in human skins and their diet is so specific that they can only eat the liver an kidneys of arab terrorists?

See...now that is very clever. Brilliant actually. Reject a reasonable possibility by presenting a totally ridiculous, asinine one. Beautiful. Love it. Keep it coming. Because...well...that's how you win arguments. Love it.

[Bergermeister]

Why always the doubter, Chris? Let people share their thougths without shoving them down every time. You don't know what or if any training or experience they might have in this area that you might or might not have that they don't know about. Opinions are valuable things. How about simply agreeing or disagreeing or even offering your own opinion (which you did) as opposed to trying to put people down all the time? It would really make people want to participate more.

[Chris Cuilla]

What are you talking about? My calling segovius on the "arm chair general" thing?

Originally posted by Bergermeister
Why always the doubter, Chris?

Doubting what?

Originally posted by Bergermeister
You don't know what or if any training or experience they might have in this area that you might or might not have that they don't know about.

True. They are welcome to offer their credentials if they like.

Originally posted by Bergermeister
Opinions are valuable things.

Sometimes, yes.

Originally posted by Bergermeister
put people down all the time?

Who did I "put down" exactly?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
See...now that is very clever. Brilliant actually. Reject a reasonable possibility by presenting a totally ridiculous, asinine one. Beautiful. Love it. Keep it coming. Because...well...that's how you win arguments. Love it. What argument? You just had a case of the whooz-ta-says.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Outsider
What argument? You just had a case of the whooz-ta-says.

Hmmm...

what makes you all assume that they haven't "had" him in the past, tried to arrest him and he's escaped in the past, so, in other words, they tried your tactics and failed?

Seemed like a reasonably posed, hypothetical question. But, I guess not.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Seemed like a reasonably posed, hypothetical question. But, I guess not.
It is a reasonable hypothetic. But its brazen speculation, not based on reports. Just as unsupported as the speculation of the opposite. Thats what Outsider looked like he was getting at.


al-Zarqawi's defeat is a success. It's good news. Remains to be seen just how far-reaching this success might be, but I think we can all agree that its better for al-Q to have one less muther focker on their team. my bleeding heart wishes he had been caught peaceably, but in a warzone, i'm happy enough.

[southside grabowski]

How was this surveillance done? I doubt there were two guys in a jeep watching the place from across the street. Maybe it was from a satellite? Maybe our people were in no position to "just arrest him"?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
How was this surveillance done? I doubt there were two guys in a jeep watching the place from across the street. Maybe it was from a satellite? Maybe our people were in no position to "just arrest him"?

Maybe they were just super-intelligent monkeys waiting to eat his liver and kidneys.

( hey, I like this )

;)

[southside grabowski]

Allahpundit has prepared a little tribute to our military for getting this guy.




http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/06/09/zarqawis-end/

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by sammi jo
I take it, that doesn't include the unarmed Iraqi men, women and children dragged out of their homes and shot because...well..for no reason other than perhaps they were in the wrong place????????

Good shooting huh? To machine gun kids to death spraying their brains all over their bedroom walls in my book is the action of cowards. FVCKING PONDSCUM COWARDS.

Just like the chickenhawks and human trash that sent them there, the top officials in that excuse-for-a-government, the Bush Adminstration.

Good shooting. Tell that to the families of 150,000+ Iraqi moms, dads and kids murdered by the US for no goddamned reason. Or perhaps the "reason" is because these unfortunate people failed to follow the same acceptable religion(s) as the NeoCons...therefore they were deemed worthy of nothing better than death by the bomb and the bullet, in the same vein as Al Qa'ida.

Good shooting, extremely respectfully. Jesus H. Christ alfvckingmighty. :mad: :mad: :no: :no: :( :(

You're cute when you're angry.

;)

Aries 1B

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
How was this surveillance done? I doubt there were two guys in a jeep watching the place from across the street. Maybe it was from a satellite? Maybe our people were in no position to "just arrest him"?

They got into the house pretty soon after the blasts, which would suggest they were pretty close to "right across the street". They allowed the Iraqis to go in first, then they went in while he was still gasping his last breaths.

How they actually found the house, now that is an interesting one that many people would like to know. Quite probably they had at least one Predator tailing the guy for a while and then zeroed in on the house. Wonder if they knew the locaions and apparent activity of the people in the house (thermal sensers will allow them to know how many people are in which rooms and whether they are active of not). THere were also likely several guys on the ground, Iraqis who could fit in to the background and tail him. Standard police trailing procedures with a little added urgency.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by segovius
Except there wasn't any shooting - it was a bomb :rolleyes:

But then again, maybe that's the invariable stock answer to any question, statement or observation at all: good shooting.

Extremely Disrespectfully.

:grumble:

You're cute when you're angry too.

;)

The military guys didn't correct me and I'll respect their authority, knowledge, and experience over yours in this case (as well as in many, many, many others).

BTW, did you hear that the terrorist lived for a while after the bombs hit to contemplate the error of his ways before he expired? I hope that they bury the bastard with a package of bacon.

Great weekend to all!!!!!!!!!!!

V/R,

Aries 1B

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
You're cute when you're angry too.

;)

The military guys didn't correct me and I'll respect their authority, knowledge, and experience over yours in this case (as well as in many, many, many others).

BTW, did you hear that the terrorist lived for a while after the bombs hit to contemplate the error of his ways before he expired? I hope that they bury the bastard with a package of bacon.

Great weekend to all!!!!!!!!!!!

V/R,

Aries 1B


Don't worry - there'll be another along in a minute. Many more deaths to celebrate yet.....

So much fun - still, only lasts fifteen minutes as they say. We should let you enjoy.... sorry if I've been taking the edge of the party.

:D

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by sammi jo
I take it, that doesn't include the unarmed Iraqi men, women and children dragged out of their homes and shot because...well..for no reason other than perhaps they were in the wrong place????????

Good shooting huh? To machine gun kids to death spraying their brains all over their bedroom walls in my book is the action of cowards. FVCKING PONDSCUM COWARDS.

Just like the chickenhawks and human trash that sent them there, the top officials in that excuse-for-a-government, the Bush Adminstration.

Good shooting. Tell that to the families of 150,000+ Iraqi moms, dads and kids murdered by the US for no goddamned reason. Or perhaps the "reason" is because these unfortunate people failed to follow the same acceptable religion(s) as the NeoCons...therefore they were deemed worthy of nothing better than death by the bomb and the bullet, in the same vein as Al Qa'ida.


Good shooting, extremely respectfully. Jesus H. Christ alfvckingmighty. :mad: :mad: :no: :no: :( :(




Few Americans take joy in the deaths of innocents.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by segovius
Don't worry - there'll be another along in a minute. Many more deaths to celebrate yet.....

So much fun - still, only lasts fifteen minutes as they say. We should let you enjoy.... sorry if I've been taking the edge of the party.

:D

You're inconsequential to the party.

As long as the terrorists die and our guys come home safe.

Terrorists go to their paradise and we get to continue. Talk about win-win....

Aries 1B

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
and our guys come home safe.
But they don't.

I know you live in a fantasy world but to extend it to the lives of the people you claim to support is bordering on the obscene.

Best to stick to denying/celebrating the deaths of 'ragheads'.

[MarcUK]

I just saw a close up photo of the expired Zarqawi in the paper. Definitely isn't the same Zarqawi as Segovius posted earlier.

Perhaps we've been duped again.

[Chris Cuilla]

Would someone kindly explain the "well, he'll be replaced anyway" argument?

This has been mentioned no less that 5 times (Bergermeister, maimezvous, groverat, segovius) in this thread alone.

Is this to suggest that we should never go after or take out a "bad guy" because, well, "well, he'll be replaced anyway"?

Does this apply in all situations or only those where you don't agree with the policies, strategies and tactics of the one's going after the "bad guy"?

[Bergermeister]

Dead bodies tend to look rather different from live ones, and live shots over several years can look radically different, especially if you try to change your appearance.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
[B]You're inconsequential to the party.

As long as the terrorists die and our guys come home safe.

Terrorists go to their paradise and we get to continue. Talk about win-win....

Aries 1B

The 'terrorists' and 'our guys'. There seems little to choose between them. Both parties are killing civilians systematically, except they murder for Allah, and we murder for Mammon (and Yahweh).

The real difference is in the death toll... which just goes to show that terrorism works extremely well with a few $hundred billion to support it.

Get real.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
[B]Few Americans take joy in the deaths of innocents.

Courtesy of a fully paid up member of "The Few".

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Would someone kindly explain the "well, he'll be replaced anyway" argument?

This has been mentioned no less that 5 times (Bergermeister, maimezvous, groverat, segovius) in this thread alone.

Is this to suggest that we should never go after or take out a "bad guy" because, well, "well, he'll be replaced anyway"?

Does this apply in all situations or only those where you don't agree with the policies, strategies and tactics of the one's going after the "bad guy"?

Well, why replace one well known enemy with one you know nothing about. Same reason Hitler was not taken out in WW2.

For instance, (as to the sucession) if I were to take out a really evil person, - that Luce guy perhaps, don't you think there would be a thousand brainwashed Luce's willing to step up to the mantle?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Would someone kindly explain the "well, he'll be replaced anyway" argument?

Certainly, it's a pleasure.

The forces of evil - I don't actually believe in evil but if I did then the current western 'allies' would pretty much be the definition - need to keep the sheep (ie you) scared and on-side.

One way they could do this would be if there were ongoing attacks by 'fanatics' who are out to get you. This would cause you to surrender (even more) of your autonomy and 'freedoms' - what little you have left of both - to the 'glorious leaders' and thus secure their position at the top and yours at the bottom and, most importantly, everyone being happy with that state of affairs.

As it turns out there is no such daily threat. Therefore they need to invent and reinforce one.

Osama was one example. Zarqawi another - the one that replaced him. Now he is in turn replaced.

The reasons are simple: new threats are unknown and more fear-inducing. They also 'prove' the threat is real and evolving.

And after all, familiarity -if only with a myth - breeds contempt and a cardboard cut-out 'tewowist' is only so effective for so long.

As it happens the propaganda machine is already cranking up: they already have the new bogeyman lined up. Watch this space.....

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The 'terrorists' and 'our guys'. There seems little to choose between them. Both parties are killing civilians systematically, except they murder for Allah, and we murder for Mammon (and Yahweh).

The real difference is in the death toll... which just goes to show that terrorism works extremely well with a few $hundred billion to support it.

Get real.

I liked you better when you were enraged. Meds kicked in, eh?

Aries 1B

[MarcUK]

oh look Israel have randomly shelled a Palestinian beach killing nothing but civilian families. Hurrah for the war on terrorism.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Certainly, it's a pleasure.

The forces of evil - I don't actually believe in evil but if I did then the current western 'allies' would pretty much be the definition - need to keep the sheep (ie you) scared and on-side.

One way they could do this would be if there were ongoing attacks by 'fanatics' who are out to get you. This would cause you to surrender (even more) of your autonomy and 'freedoms' - what little you have left of both - to the 'glorious leaders' and thus secure their position at the top and yours at the bottom and, most importantly, everyone being happy with that state of affairs.

As it turns out there is no such daily threat. Therefore they need to invent and reinforce one.

Osama was one example. Zarqawi another - the one that replaced him. Now he is in turn replaced.

The reasons are simple: new threats are unknown and more fear-inducing. They also 'prove' the threat is real and evolving.

And after all, familiarity -if only with a myth - breeds contempt and a cardboard cut-out 'tewowist' is only so effective for so long.

As it happens the propaganda machine is already cranking up: they already have the new bogeyman lined up. Watch this space.....

Ah I get it now. The "they" in "they will replace him" is not the (fictional) terrorist organizations but the propagandizing U.S. administration.

Sorry, I didn't have my conspiracy thinking cap on (http://www.bttfmovie.com/modules/images/1955/large/1955_doc_d.jpg).

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ah I get it now. The "they" in "they will replace him" is not the (fictional) terrorist organizations but the propagandizing U.S. administration.

Sorry, I didn't have my conspiracy thinking cap on (http://www.bttfmovie.com/modules/images/1955/large/1955_doc_d.jpg).

I realize that, your cap is a bit more woolly and fleece-like I think.....

But just remember - you may think the shepherd loves the sheep but at the end of the day he is merely protecting the assets of the abbatoir.

[MarcUK]

you know the only difference between Osama, Zarqawi et al and the US admin is that they have not yet realised that psychological brainwashing is far more effective than bombs, legal and easy to slip under the radar.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
you know the only difference between Osama, Zarqawi et al and the US admin is that they have not yet realised that psychological brainwashing is far more effective than bombs, legal and easy to slip under the radar.

There's no difference.

Psychological brainwashing is what they use when they have an 'empire' to administer and a population to keep subservient.

Violence and death is what gets them to that position.

The US is employing the first technique on its home population through marketing, work-slavery, status and religion (as well as suppression of 'disturbing' concepts).

It is employing the second technique in Iraq and Afghanistan and soon Iran.

If those countries can be brought to the level of the US as is now then they will switch to the same techniques as used on the home populace and scare the shit out of (recently conditioned and subservient) Iraqis/Iranians with a Chinese/Korean/Martian bogeyman who is coming to 'steal your freedoms' and kill you.

In reality it is the west that have stolen your freedom - half of them cannot even think and when they do it is about some medieval lunacy that has more holes in it than a Palestinian approaching an Israeli checkpoint - and the west that is doing the mass killing.

The fact that half of the sheep don't believe it and the other half don't care is testament to how well the system works.

With all this madness, I am sometimes forced to consider the possibility that the demonic may in fact be very real....

[Flounder]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Few Americans take joy in the deaths of innocents.

Aren't you the one who has repeatadly suggested we should have just bombed Iraq into the stone age?

The irony is as thick as pea soup.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Courtesy of a fully paid up member of "The Few".

You really think Americans are happy to see dead Iraqi civilians? When it comes to situations like that alleged to have occured in Haditha, Americans may circle the wagons around their military, but they don't feel good about what happened.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by Flounder
Aren't you the one who has repeatadly suggested we should have just bombed Iraq into the stone age?

The irony is as thick as pea soup.

I didn't say that I would be happy about the innocents killed. I do believe that places like fallujah would have been easier to clean out from the air. Our military did it the way that they did to save civilian lives, and yet the left moans on about the "massacre in fallujah".

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Would someone kindly explain the "well, he'll be replaced anyway" argument?

This has been mentioned no less that 5 times (Bergermeister, maimezvous, groverat, segovius) in this thread alone.

Is this to suggest that we should never go after or take out a "bad guy" because, well, "well, he'll be replaced anyway"?

Does this apply in all situations or only those where you don't agree with the policies, strategies and tactics of the one's going after the "bad guy"?

Its a pretty simple concept. Top of the tier dies, everyone else moves up. I don't think theres any doubt that a new al-Q leader will emerge. The US didn't cease to exist when Lincoln died, nor Garfield, nor Kennedy [...]. Innumerable leaders have been killed over the years, and many of their followers continued to follow in their steps [or in the spirit of their intent]. Do we really think that al-Q was lead by an irreplaceable leader? What remains to be seen is how effective the new regime will be. We all hope for an uprupt end, but really, we can't make that assumption; we have to assume some new evil will emerge.

[Chris Cuilla]

I guess they've gotten more than just Al-Zarqawi:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13222000/

U.S. military raids based on intelligence gathered from the destroyed hideout of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have yielded at least two dozen captives and a hidden cache of weaponry, Iraqi army uniforms and other materials, a senior U.S. military spokesman said Friday.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
Its a pretty simple concept. Top of the tier dies, everyone else moves up. I don't think theres any doubt that a new al-Q leader will emerge. The US didn't cease to exist when Lincoln died, nor Garfield, nor Kennedy [...]. Innumerable leaders have been killed over the years, and many of their followers continued to follow in their steps [or in the spirit of their intent]. Do we really think that al-Q was lead by an irreplaceable leader? What remains to be seen is how effective the new regime will be. We all hope for an uprupt end, but really, we can't make that assumption; we have to assume some new evil will emerge.

I understand the organizational dynamics of how it happens. I just fail to see how it is a relevant "argument" in any way shape or form. The notion that "another will replace him" is thrown out as if to suggest there we no point in getting him. This seems to be fallacious thinking.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I didn't say that I would be happy about the innocents killed. I do believe that places like fallujah would have been easier to clean out from the air. Our military did it the way that they did to save civilian lives, and yet the left moans on about the "massacre in fallujah".

Oh, so you wouldn't have been "happy" about bombing them to the stone age but it would have had your full support, correct?

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I understand the organizational dynamics of how it happens. I just fail to see how it is a relevant "argument" in any way shape or form. The notion that "another will replace him" is thrown out as if to suggest there we no point in getting him. This seems to be fallacious thinking.

I think it is just a reality, so that killing the top guy does not actually achieve that much. Al-Q will not really suffer from this "blow" anymore than you would from a sneeze; someone will replace him. If anything, the strike may increase Al-Q's activity for the short term.

Removing one of their leaders is a good thing, but we have to be guarded about what the impact of that will be, and concerned that the method used was no better than what he was accused of doing and may ultimately simply have created a martyr.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
I think it is just a reality, so that killing the top guy does not actually achieve that much. Al-Q will not really suffer from this "blow" anymore than you would from a sneeze; someone will replace him. If anything, the strike may increase Al-Q's activity for the short term.

Removing one of their leaders is a good thing, but we have to be guarded about what the impact of that will be, and concerned that the method used was no better than what he was accused of doing and may ultimately simply have created a martyr.

Fyi - al-Q in Iraq (ie Zarqawis alleged outfit) is not the same as al-Misri Martyrs which is what people generally mean when they say al-Q and is allegedly OBLs group.

Zarqawi just utilized the name in the first case as a means of confusion/cashing in/spreading more terror but he in no way was 'authorized' by bin Laden and the two groups are very different with differing command structures and - to a certain extent - aims and methods.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
I think it is just a reality, so that killing the top guy does not actually achieve that much. Al-Q will not really suffer from this "blow" anymore than you would from a sneeze;

Pure conjecture.

Originally posted by Bergermeister
someone will replace him.

There it is again. So? Then we take out the next guy, and the next and the next.

Originally posted by Bergermeister
If anything, the strike may increase Al-Q's activity for the short term.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Originally posted by Bergermeister
and concerned that the method used was no better than what he was accused of doing and

:rolleyes:

There it is...how did SDW say it?

"We killed him. We're no better than the terrorists!"

He nailed that.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
...eat his liver and kidneys.


...with fava beans and a nice Chianti!

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Pure conjecture.



You're right. I do not know (nor wish to kow) how forceful your sneezes are. My apologies.

Gesundheit.

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by segovius
Fyi - al-Q in Iraq (ie Zarqawis alleged outfit) is not the same as al-Misri Martyrs which is what people generally mean when they say al-Q and is allegedly OBLs group.

Zarqawi just utilized the name in the first case as a means of confusion/cashing in/spreading more terror but he in no way was 'authorized' by bin Laden and the two groups are very different with differing command structures and - to a certain extent - aims and methods.


I was suggesting the dictionary definition of martyr, not any specific group Also: yes, the Zarquawi group was not for all we know true Al-Q, but people calling themselves that.

[Tulkas]

Saw this in today local paper. Seems like a reasonable analysis.

Haifa University scholar Amatzia Baram, one of the region's pre-eminent Iraqi experts, who saw an unprecedented opportunity for a clean slate.

"This is much more than merely symbolic. I would risk saying that Zarqawi's death could signal the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," Baram said.

"Yes, an enormously powerful symbol is gone. But his removal also takes away a tremendously organized and capable operational leader whose actions claimed the lives of at least several thousands of Iraqi Shiites. It leaves the whole operation totally confused and far less efficient."

Baram and others agree, the insurgency will continue, perhaps more violently than before. But Baram anticipates we will now see an insurgency of a different flavour, led by homegrown Sunni tribal forces whose interest is far less ideological, substantially more pragmatic.

"The most important factor in all of this is also the least reported," said Baram. "During the past few months, Zarqawi's men clashed openly with the local Sunni tribes of the upper Euphrates River, especially in Fallujah, Ramadi and Haditha.

"The clashes were the result of different agendas. Zarqawi's goal was global Islamic revolution -- that's not an Iraqi project, it is a pan-Muslim project. And it was driven by blind, non-negotiable ideology.

"But that is not what the Sunni tribes of Iraq are interested in. They see their future in Iraq and Iraq alone. They are approachable. They will consider laying down their weapons for the right political deal. It won't be easy, of course, but we can now expect those tribes to fill a lot of the space left vacant by Zarqawi.

"I see a gradual dying down not in the insurgency, but in al-Qaida's share in the insurgency, which would be a very important phase on the way to Iraqi reconciliation."

Baram's analysis of an insurgency buckling under the weight of contradictory goals is supported by the still-sketchy facts of Wednesday's air strike near Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, which is said to have come as a result of "tips and intelligence from senior Iraqi leaders from (Zarqawi's) network."

[NOFEER]

a lot can be said for taking off the head of the snake. lose momentum, vision, disrupts, demoralizes it can also cause dissention in the ranks-- (i don't think AQ is partying). it would be good to know the structure of AQ, was it more like the british (rev war, 1812) where if you took out the officer the underlings were leaderless and scattered, how decentralized was the vision and network, how much was shared. i don't think much was, he seemed to be the go to guy, he probably had the network, contacts, money flow and access, trust of other leaders in the terrorist world. this might have been an easy way for a rival leader to push ahead e.g. mafia lessions learned. so now they have to creat a new one, hmmmmm get those hard drives and cell phones records. we might be able to stir up lots of internal distrust.

[spindler]

Chris Culia wrote:

"The notion that "another will replace him" is thrown out as if to suggest there we no point in getting him. This seems to be fallacious thinking."



The point is that killing al-Zarqawi is not a big deal because it is like killing only a few regular terrorists, or maybe 50. That's the progress and no more. You are not weakening the power structure. Let's say there was 23,456 terrorists before. Now there are 23,406 if you count him as 50. And there can always be more from other countries to replace him.

- It's not like it makes it any easier at all to kill any of the rest of them.
- It's not like 5,000 of them are going to be disheartened and therefore go home and stop fighting.
- It's not like we've now taken a pivotal area and it now makes any future battles any easier.
- It's not like suicide bombings or blowing up mosques got any harder.

All in all its just another brick in the wall.

[pfflam]

What is the point of arguing about the way the leadership of a terrorist organization is replaced?

I mean, the point is is that this guy odered and executed many murders through bombings of civilians, beheadings etc: he claimed responsibility for many many deaths.

If they replace him there is still a minor disruption in the system . . . however minor it can not be a bad thing to have him done away with.

I wonder sometimes about the motives of my fellow 'left-leaners'?!?!

It is a terrible thing that people died, it is even a terrible thing that it became a better thing that this man died than allowing him to live with even a chance of escape, but I am pretty sure that that is what happened: they didn't want him to escape and were not in a secure enough mode of surround as to be able to insure his capture . . . after all it had happened a number of times before: we thought we had him . . . then poof.

I just keep thinking about the car bomb that killed 72 Iraqis and I can't help but be a little bit relieved when this guy is out of the picture . . . maybe, just maybe they'll find a whole bunch of super incompetent leaders who lack charisma, who can't organize a decent propaganda strategy or an effective terror campaign and they start to lose membership! . . . . or even better, maybe they'll recruit a VERY charismatic leader who will, at the hieght of his power and visibility suddenly have a briliant insight and realize that when they kill in the name of God it is blasphemy and a sin and besides its really mean and stupid too . . . . who knows!

I was relieved to read the headlines . . . and that is not 'celibrating death' quite the opposite actually.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by pfflam
If they replace him there is still a minor disruption in the system . . . however minor it can not be a bad thing to have him done away with.

I wonder sometimes about the motives of my fellow 'left-leaners'?!?!

Was he a complete bastard and should he rot in hell? Yes.

Does the devil you know beat the devil you don't? Maybe.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
There it is again. So? Then we take out the next guy, and the next and the next.

That's from Matthew's Gospel isn't it? Sermon on the Mount I think - I forget the exact reference.

Actually, in reality it is the main brainwashing the sheep have bought into: eternal war.

And here it is being re-gurgitated as 'gospel'.

[MarcUK]

Eternal war - a state of fear induced so that you can be controlled and manipulated by the protector.

[Bergermeister]

Until we find and fix the cause of terrorism, there will be many, many next guys, who will all take many, many of people's lives before they in turn get caught. Not that I have the answer, but all we are doing is covering up the symptoms of an underlying problem, and that allows the problem to persist, to fester, and to strike again, and again, and again, and the next guy, and the next, and again, and again.

"A major victory in the War on Terror (registered trademark) today: the 79th hereditary leader of Oh-Screw-You, who singularly was responsible for the deaths of 23 Americans over the past decade and who has been Public Enemy #1 for the past five, was killed when thirty million bombs were dropped on the neighborhood he was visiting like he had every other weekend for the past thirty years; the president claims the loss of 723 innocent civilians was part of the price you pay to gget such a large prize and prevent another 9/11... The action today was th result of a 34 billion dollar clandestine operation involving personnel from 739 government agencies..."

"In another story, seismologists in Hawaii noticed a large earthquake in..."

Arrgh!

[spindler]

"Until we find and fix the cause of terrorism,"

Personally, I just think that out of all people, in any country, 2%-5% are simply crazy and would enjoy killing other people if given the chance. Out of all of the kings who had absolute power over people in the past, what percentage of them would be described as gentle?

I'm sure lots of Americans would enjoy killing if given the chance. Here we are conditioned to think killing innocent people is never acceptable, so the percentage is probably a lot lower, though.

Until the entire population among a society declares that killing other than in self defense is always wrong, the few per cent of nuts will have enough of an excuse.

[NOFEER]

Originally posted by spindler
"Until we find and fix the cause of terrorism,"

Personally, I just think that out of all people, in any country, 2%-5% are simply crazy and would enjoy killing other people if given the chance. Out of all of the kings who had absolute power over people in the past, what percentage of them would be described as gentle?

I'm sure lots of Americans would enjoy killing if given the chance. Here we are conditioned to think killing innocent people is never acceptable, so the percentage is probably a lot lower, though.

Until the entire population among a society declares that killing other than in self defense is always wrong, the few per cent of nuts will have enough of an excuse.

and use some religion to justify it....few have the rocks to simply say..."i like killing, i want others to think like i do...i do it because i feel powerful and enjoy causing pain--i am evil..join me". most say "(religious reference) makes me do this to protect the (religious) dogma....It (religious reference) demands we do this...do this with me and go to "heaven".

it's what evil is all about

[southside grabowski]

I'm ready to call it a milestone.

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I'm ready to call it a milestone.

Imagine my shock.

[sammi jo]

Hmmmmm..... (http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-10T074455Z_01_IBO024142_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-ZARQAWI-HOUSE.xml)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was accompanied by women who wore skimpy night clothing, and read magazines on current affairs and militant propaganda, an inspection of the house he was killed in showed on Saturday.
.....................Also beside the slabs of concrete was a woman's leopard skin nightgown and other skimpy women's clothes..............

The big bad boogeyman fundamentalist muslim who hates all things Western! :lol: Yeah, absolutely, in the same way that "Osama bin Laden" wears gold jewelry, according to the Pentagon. :no:

:rolleyes:

Try again, Pentagon. With a $480 billion annual budget, surely you can do a little better than that?

If would be merely pathetic, if not for the element of farce.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Hmmmmm..... (http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-10T074455Z_01_IBO024142_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-ZARQAWI-HOUSE.xml)



The big bad boogeyman fundamentalist muslim who hates all things Western! :lol: Yeah, absolutely, in the same way that "Osama bin Laden" wears gold jewelry, according to the Pentagon. :no:

:rolleyes:

Try again, Pentagon. With a $480 billion annual budget, surely you can do a little better than that?

If would be merely pathetic, if not for the element of farce.


So he was a hypocrite. The 911 murders spend time in strip clubs. So what? Hypocritical murders. He had hoochie mamas. So be it.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
He had hoochie mamas. So be it. Frank Costanza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seinfeld_Curse#The_Serenity_Now_.28Season_9.29 ), is that you?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
So he was a hypocrite. The 911 murders spend time in strip clubs. So what? Hypocritical murders. He had hoochie mamas. So be it.

So here we have the most notorious "fundamentalist Islamic" guys (Zarqawi, Atta, OBL et al), who have trashed "at a stroke" their entire raison d'etre, namely "devotion to Allah and the laws of Islam? How did these devotees of Sharia manage to live a complete lie, thumbing their noses at their beloved Allah by embracing "the worst excesses of the Great Satan" they are supposedly so vehemently against? That they would use methods of violence that are forbidden to any genuine devotee of Mohammed, or even committing suicide to arrive at an afterlife that they know would be denied to them by Allah because of all their (previous) wordly sins, indulgences and indiscretions? And how several of their number who were allegedly on those 9-11 flights, supposedly "hating America, detesting Western lifestyles and values", but at the same time living here taking full advantage of the freedoms denied to them by the beloved Allah and by flouting Islamic laws to the max, indulging in strippers, kinky sex, alcohol and drug use, western clothes, jewelry, and the rest...

No, grab(owsky) some reality here. The last 5 or so years' anti Arab/Muslim propaganda is logically wanting. Severely so. The notion of "fundamentalist Islamic lunatics out to get us" is patently and obviously a fear tactic by neoconservative thinktanks who need a new boogeyman to justify their preordained global designs, whether it be messianic Christians who are trying to initiate self fulfilling prophecy, hardline Zionists who are after the concept of a "Greater Israel", or plain greedy corporate welfare queens who want access to vast amounts of the taxpayers' money. Where are all these wellarmed America-hating Muslim fundie terrorists, streaming across the open Mexican border in their thousands to bomb our malls, sports stadia, theaters and all the easily attackable 'soft-targets' in any US city you care to name? What have they all these oil-money-soaked suicidal "ragheads", to use the vernacular, in their vehemence to destroy all things American, been doing?

Fortunately, nothing. They don't really exist as described, and they never really have, certainly not to anywhere the extent as promoted by our paranoia-mongers in the White House, and reiterated, verbatim, to order, by our weasel-media. The "threat" is largely manufactured, as is the motivation. Period. Inner city gangbangers and rightwing militias are probably a greater threat to national security than this bogus paranoid muslim-conspiracy-mongering that has become so fashionable since the demise of the USSR. But a new "foreign threat" sure sells wars nicely, especially when repeated ad nauseam. Al Qaeda, al qaeda, al qaeda. Repeat that often enough, as a mantra, and the mind can play some extraordinary tricks.

And as an afterthought: if there is ever another big terrorist attack on US soil in the future (which we all hope to heaven never happens again), examine very very closely the first news reports that come out, the stuff that comes out in real time, by reporters on the spot, in the thick of the action. Run VCRs of the earliest TV reports, take notes of initial stories... for it is usually the first take that is the real, most accurate news.... well before it gets analyzed, editorialized, directed and sanitized in the aftermath.

Just my 2c that most, unfortunately cannot relate to.

[spindler]

Excellent point above, NO FEER.

[southside grabowski]

1. They themselves claim to be working on the behalf of Islam
2. Some (a minority) of muslims claim these people are fighting for Islam
3. The free Govs of the world claim these people are working for their view of Islam.
4. The moonbats say Bush made it all up to scare the people into letting Cheney's former company make money.

The people are geting mixed messages.

[southside grabowski]

Another thing. I am tired of all this drivel about fear. The people are not afraid. The people are angry and anxious to agressively make sure we don't have another 911. This "fear " crap is another invention of the left.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Another thing. I am tired of all this drivel about fear. The people are not afraid. The people are angry and anxious to agressively make sure we don't have another 911. This "fear " crap is another invention of the left.

The people were afraid. Now that they've got Bush's number they won't fall for the fear thing ( and terror alert # whatever ) again.;)

It' true though. For awhile Bush was playing the people like a musical instrument.

Ps. " Saddam's gonna getcha! Now where are those WMD even if they don't exist ( that couldn't even reach us but we won't emphasize that point )? I've got it! We'll play up Saddam's ( non )connection to 911. " ;)

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The people are not afraid. The people are angry and anxious

I believe it was Professor Freud who first outlined the key links between anger and anxiousness as displacement phenomena to mask deep underlying fears.

As is well known, his work tended to focus on specific fears in the psycho-sexual areas which were transposed into everyday contexts. Perhaps the classic example - and one which would be most pertinent in relation to the current discussion - would be fears coalescing around the possibility of castration.

These fears of 'losing the penis', particularly by violent or painful methodologies, are primarily the same as those that inform the fears - or 'aggression' if you prefer - of today's extreme right.

Freud pointed out that once these castration fears have been submerged they struggle to emerge - often at inopportune moments - and this phenomena came to be known as the 'Freudian Slip'.

In the current context it is not hard to see the subtexts of the right's most beloved motifs such as 'enormous guns', 'huge choppers' and 'overpowering force' as the popular id trying to make conscious the mass fear of collective castration.

Of course, with the love of uniforms and machismo there is a slight 'Village People' camp aspect but that is fairly advanced stuff and best not to broach here.

[dmz]

segovius, you're not a chemically induced WC bender -- perhaps something involving Jägermeister and mescaline -- by any chance?

[southside grabowski]

Yah, I'm sure that's it. Or maybe it was the practical realization that a guy like OBL with pretty limited resources was able to inflict major damage to us and therefore we better take some ation.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Yah, I'm sure that's it. Or maybe it was the practical realization that a guy like OBL with pretty limited resources was able to inflict major damage to us and therefore we better take some ation.


Well maybe Bush should have read those reports about Al Queda planning to use airplanes as weapons that were sitting on his desk for awhile? ;)

[segovius]

Breaking News: new boogey man to replace Zarqawi has been selected from cast of thousands.

The lucky winner, Abu al-Masri (http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=413) said today that Zarqawi would be a hard act to follow but he is delighted with his chance to take centre stage and while he could not compete with Zarqawi's record, promised to redefine the role and give 110% to scaring the sheep.

Mr al-Misri also thanked the CIA scriptwriters for their outstanding work on all Mr Zarqawi's projects and is understood to be employing the same team for his own material.

But he was at pains to stress that his would be a totally new production and promised a 'completely new direction' and pledged to produce completely original material and take sheep-scaring to new heights both in terms of ratcheting the fear and developing creative story-lines.

Industry insiders say that the public can expect to be transported to completely new levels of fear over the coming months and that the budget for the new productions has been upscaled completely.

Mr al-Misri is currently working with top CIA writers and will shortly begin rehearsing for his debut performance believed to be provisionally entitled: "Run for your lives: I'm coming to behead your freedom......"

[Bergermeister]

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Catch the full story at eleven.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Another thing. I am tired of all this drivel about fear. The people are not afraid. The people are angry and anxious to agressively make sure we don't have another 911. This "fear " crap is another invention of the left.

Fear is not an invention of the left. It is a reality of the right, and it is just another excuse for them to try to take more of our civil liberties away from us.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Fear is not an invention of the left. It is a reality of the right, and it is just another excuse for them to try to take more of our civil liberties away from us.

Quit pretending that fear is only a tool for the R's or conservatives or something. It is foolish.

[Aquatic]

I have never really understood the logic of this kind of argument. It is used in the movie "Munich" too.


Apparently you have a Ph.D. in Logic and Arguments. Or maybe you don't understand logic or arguments. Or global politics. Or global warming. Yeah I'm still steaming at your faux philosophical/logical quackery in the global warming thread.

As for killing an enemy leader...why not approach the entire system differently? I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just saying perhaps someday we will think of something better than war. Or even IN war/politics/economics perhaps there is a better strategy than taking out the leader. You just seem close-minded and short-sighted, that's all. And yet ironically you're always the one claiming we're close-minded, and you have the thinking-outside-the-box approach.

Isn't there always a better way of doing something? Are we looking in to it? I don't know the answer. But I'd hope we indeed are looking in to alternatives to keeping the peace. Thinking outside the box, if you will.

edit: Okay I have to clear a bit up after parsing the thread further. I'm for the death penalty. It just seems to me, from reading news, that killers always get back out and kill more. And that they know it and that jail isn't as much of a deterrent as the death penalty. And that in general I'd want someone who killed anyone I know to die. BUT perhaps there is a better way. I just haven't heard a better proposal yet. Life in jail seems like a much more retarded option. And that's about the only alternative I've heard of. Hence my stance.

Now, on this subject of killing Zarqawi: Does he deserve to die? Are you kidding me--of course!!! But, was that tactically the right move? It would seem to me again--of course! From what I've read he was not just a figurehead, he was involved, correct? However, long-term, shouldn't we be doing more than just continually swatting the flies, and get to the root of the problem? After all, we are providing a world-class training ground for Al Quaeda. Doesn't it seem kind of circular? We continue to wage war against them, which lets them continue training, to wage war against us.

I don't even begin to claim to the know the answer to the whole Iraq quandary--either after the invasion or even before the invasion (I don't know if we should have invaded, to be honest. I have absolutely no idea. I don't claim to know anything about socio-political/economic/military endeavors and their interactions.) Just random musings...

[Harald]

Quick note one the death penalty (as someone said they were in favour of it): it doesn't work.

That is, in states or countries that have abolished the death penalty, the amount of crimes that would have earned it decreases, and in places where it is introduced such crimes increase. All peer-reviewed scientific studies of the issue point to this being more then correlation but causation. If you want links, search this forum as I've provided them before several times (but frankly they are not hard to find on tha intarweb). Might make you feel better if you're the kind of person that thinks Jesus was a wuss but makes you and your family less safe.

Secondly, no, I didn't shed a tear for al-Zarqawi [edit: but it won't make a fucking tiny bit of difference] and yes I know the killing was extra judicial.

As you were.

Back to the topic at hand.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Aquatic
...snipped arrogant little snarky comment that seeks to demonstrate your supperiority in logical thinking...

Originally posted by Aquatic
As for killing an enemy leader...why not approach the entire system differently? I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just saying perhaps someday we will think of something better than war. Or even IN war/politics/economics perhaps there is a better strategy than taking out the leader.

Well, maybe there is, and sometimes different tactics are used. Economic sanctions for example. But to suggest that we should not seek to go after a particular leader because "well, he'll just be replaced anyway" seems to be a dubious argument.

Originally posted by Aquatic
You just seem close-minded and short-sighted, that's all.

Of you see it that way. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Aquatic
And yet ironically you're always the one claiming we're close-minded

Not sure where I claimed that. But...if you say so...

Originally posted by Aquatic
Isn't there always a better way of doing something?

No.

Originally posted by Aquatic
Are we looking in to it? I don't know the answer. But I'd hope we indeed are looking in to alternatives to keeping the peace. Thinking outside the box, if you will.

I don't know. I hope so too.

Originally posted by Aquatic
However, long-term, shouldn't we be doing more than just continually swatting the flies, and get to the root of the problem?

The argument of "cutting off the head" is based on not swatting at flies...but getting to the root of the problem. Maybe not deep enough in this case...or even at all. But that is the basic theory.