Al Zarqawi - They got him !!!!

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Killed in an airstrike.

His condition could be described as "Satisfactory".

[Bill_the_Pony]

His condition could be described as "Satisfactory".


From a news article at Reuters:

Al-Qaida in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi’s death and vowed to continue its “holy war,” according to a statement posted on a Web site.

“We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

“The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.”

:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong. Good to see the man dead. I only wish Bush was laying alongside him as well. :)

[Bark]

The Al-Qaida official response cracks me up. "Joyous news"? Talk about spin. What organization has a "plan" that has their leader die as a part of their effort? The underwear gnomes on "South Park" had a more articulate plan.

[Intelligent_Design]

I don't think we were smart enough to find him on our own, He was prob sold out by his number 2 or 3 so they could move up.

[kah]

I don't think we were smart enough to find him on our own, He was prob sold out by his number 2 or 3 so they could move up.

Well, they probably needed a leader who was even more vicious, so they let us kill Zarqawi to give us a false sense of superiority and to give the terrorists a martyr to encourage them to keep fighting us.

[tstone]

Well, there was a 25 mil bounty out for him. Someone just won the lottery.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, there was a 25 mil bounty out for him. Someone just won the lottery.

And that someone is going to need $25 million to pay for all the security they'll require in a lifetime of looking over their shoulder...



Bttw, I read that a woman and child were also killed getting to Zarqawi. Don't we usually call that terrorism when they do it? :ohwell:



.

[sickness]

And that someone is going to need $25 million to pay for all the security they'll require in a lifetime of looking over their shoulder...



Bttw, I read that a woman and child were also killed getting to Zarqawi. Don't we usually call that terrorism when they do it? :ohwell:



.
When they do it intentionally.

There will always be collateral damage in war. The innocent will always die and it is always sad when they die, but it is unavoidable. At least we're not aiming at kids.

[sickness]

Oh, and Nelson from The Simpsons points at Zarqawi and says, "HA HA!"

[Space Tycoon]

When they do it intentionally.

There will always be collateral damage in war. The innocent will always die and it is always sad when they die, but it is unavoidable. At least we're not aiming at kids.

I've been hearing that argument for years, and it just sounds too... convenient.

Zarqawi was killed in an airstrike in which two 500-lb bombs were dropped on his house. The damage done by that type of ordinance is pretty indiscriminate.

Did the US military know there were civilians in that house? If they had known, would it have altered the engagement? Or would they be satisfied knowing that they could label it as collateral damage.

When an IED explodes under a US humvee, killing soldiers as well as civilians, do we give the insurgents the same benefit of the doubt, ie., that they were not targeting civvies but they just happened to be in the way? Or do we just call it terrorism?




.

[Intelligent_Design]

I've been hearing that argument for years, and it just sounds too... convenient.




.


True!!! Zarqawi has been known to play a part in Innocent blood being spilled,But he would have never reached Bush levels.

[Space Tycoon]

True!!! Zarqawi has been known to play a part in Innocent blood being spilled,But he would have never reached Bush levels.
Unless he had access to some real hardware. Then there's no telling what he could have done.


And now, this is the part where the neocons would usually say, "That's why we had to stop Saddam from acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction! Don't you get it!? YOU TRAITOR!!"


:smirks:



.

[omicron]

True, the whole 'surgical strike' thing is just a way of making the public feel better. Half a ton of high explosive is going to make the neighborhood a bad place.

Still, the insurgents have a way of targetting US soldiers. They wear the funny tan chocolatechip uniforms. It's hard to say that they aren't targetting civilians when they stop a bus full of Iraqis who were travelling, when they shoot up a marketplace, when they kill Iraqi politicians, etc etc.

And while the insurgents don't make it easy for the troops by wearing a nice neon pink uniform, and while there ARE instances of US troops committing attrocities(see: Haditha), I'd like to think that they aren't just indiscrimatingly going, "Hey, there's a brown person, let's machinegun 'em!!"

I think we've had this argument before, ST. :wink:

Omi

[Space Tycoon]

Yes, we have. No need to re-open old wounds. Let the healing continue.

:hugs:

As far as Haditha goes, no-one should be surprised that some soldiers are committing war crimes. The entire Iraq conflict hasn't had an ounce of legitimacy from day one--apart from the singular goal of removing Saddam from power. The entire war is a crime, and has been driven by a culture of political criminality that goes straight to the top, and is not limited to one party.


Another problem is that this war has been constantly sold as a transformational, liberation war to bring democracy to the Arab/Islamic masses. In actuality, it is simply another occupation, one of many we have seen all too many times in the past. And it has all of the hallmarks of an occupation-- from secret prisons holding tens of thousands of political prisoners; to bloody air and land assaults on civilian population centres; to venal collaborators serving as Iraqi politicians, bureaucrats, soldiers, police etc.; to the blanket labelling of all resistance as "terrorist."

Every colonial occupation follows many of the same patterns. They always begin with a great hew and cry of optimism and moral rectitude. But they invariably corrupt, demoralize and dehumanize all sides involved, especially the occupying power.

This has implications not only for the Iraqi people, but for the future of America as a world leader. Successful insurgencies don't have to be high-tech to inflict crippling blows to an imperial power's self-esteem and morale.

Soviet Russia did not collapse merely as a result of Reagan's military buildup of the 1980's, but through the sustained and determined Afghan resistance of the same time. France, Britain, Holland, Belgium-- they all had sprawling empires, even after WWII, but when their colonial subjects finally took it upon themselves to revolt (with a lot of help from the Soviets), they were finished.






.

[sickness]

I've been hearing that argument for years, and it just sounds too... convenient.

Zarqawi was killed in an airstrike in which two 500-lb bombs were dropped on his house. The damage done by that type of ordinance is pretty indiscriminate.

Did the US military know there were civilians in that house? If they had known, would it have altered the engagement? Or would they be satisfied knowing that they could label it as collateral damage.

When an IED explodes under a US humvee, killing soldiers as well as civilians, do we give the insurgents the same benefit of the doubt, ie., that they were not targeting civvies but they just happened to be in the way? Or do we just call it terrorism?




.
I think it's possible terrorists don't target civilians. In fact, it's probably the case on a regular basis when they target our troops BUT they don't just target our troops when they park car bombs outside of police stations where people are lined up to join the police force. If they truly are just attacking our troops, they wouldn't make attacks on us where they are guaranteed massive civilian casualties.

[Space Tycoon]

I guess my point is, there are terrorist acts in which civilians are targeted, and then there is guerilla warfare in which both sides are armed. And somewhere in the middle, you have events in which both are taking place, deliberately or otherwise. That pretty much sums it up for me.

The Iraqi resistance has indulged in both of these acts, especially the Sunnis. Certain Shi'ite militias were originally more circumspect in following the rules of war, for the most part-- no killings of hostages, that sort of thing(though that no longer seems to be the case). al-Qaida and certain other Sunni organizations have shown no such restraints. The beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl (http://www.saja.org/pearl.html) is one the more notorious examples.

But when Jordanian journalist Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US air attack against al-Jazeera, (http://www.jordanembassyus.org/04092003001.htm) where was the outrage? And when you have the President of the United States advocating air attacks against Al-Jazeera headquarters and it's team of civilian journalists, (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--bush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html) then surely we must ask ourselves if we don't have another mad bomber we ought to be be getting rid of.





.

[Intelligent_Design]

I think it's possible terrorists don't target civilians.

I disagree. I think terrorists target civilians more than US troops. They are trying to influence the general public through terror.

[sickness]

I disagree. I think terrorists target civilians more than US troops. They are trying to influence the general public through terror.

There is no doubt in my mind that they target civilians more than we do since it's against policy, U.S. law, international law and, most importantly, the morals Americans share with each other and most of the rest of the world on human rights.

That said, attacking the general Iraqi population ad nauseum doesn't serve their purpose of gaining popular support. Some groups may not care about an adverse reaction to their actions as long as they can continue to operate but guerillas (who ARE being lumped in with terrorists by the media and most Americans... and I'm guilty of it, too, in my previous statements) who truly are fighting for Iraqi freedom (from their perspective) have nothing to gain by indiscriminant killing. It disproves their point.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

So now he's a holy martyr. Great. Killing him is useless and isn't going to make one heap of a difference, except to inspire more Arab youths to become terrorists.

[Space Tycoon]

Oh, I don't know... didn't seem like the most inspirational fellow the jihad ever produced...

"Duh, how do you work this thing....."


http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/05/05/imageNYET58805050143.jpg






.

[sickness]

And they didn't need him as a martyr to help recruit a significantly larger amount of disaffected youth in the Arab world. There were plenty already.

[Space Tycoon]

It is remotely possible that he could serve as an example of what doesn't work.




.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I hope so. I suppose there has to be a line drawn, one that divides terroristic acts from acceptable behavior. If we (persons of good will, of all races, creeds, etc.) make a stand that, no matter what, we will never reward terrorism with any kind of surrender to the aims of the terrorists, then at some point one of two things should eventually happen:
Terrorists will change their tactics.
Terrorists will learn to seek negotiations and compromise.

I would like to encourage negotiations and compromise. At some point I would like to see some leadership that decides "enough is enough" and genuinely considers alternative solutions, of any and all kinds, to specific problems.

I can't believe that if enough incentives (acceptable to all parties) were offered to Palestinians, and others in the Middle East who use of violence as a means to an end, there couldn't be a virtual end to terrorism there.

[omicron]

I hope so. I suppose there has to be a line drawn, one that divides terroristic acts from acceptable behavior. If we (persons of good will, of all races, creeds, etc.) make a stand that, no matter what, we will never reward terrorism with any kind of surrender to the aims of the terrorists, then at some point one of two things should eventually happen:
Terrorists will change their tactics.
Terrorists will learn to seek negotiations and compromise.

I would like to encourage negotiations and compromise. At some point I would like to see some leadership that decides "enough is enough" and genuinely considers alternative solutions, of any and all kinds, to specific problems.

I can't believe that if enough incentives (acceptable to all parties) were offered to Palestinians, and others in the Middle East who use of violence as a means to an end, there couldn't be a virtual end to terrorism there.

Well, there's the problem. When you have groups that have dichotomous ideas, you can't compromise. And don't forget the old saying, 'A compromise is a decision that makes no-one happy' :ohwell:

Omi

[Space Tycoon]

I can't believe that if enough incentives (acceptable to all parties) were offered to Palestinians, and others in the Middle East who use of violence as a means to an end, there couldn't be a virtual end to terrorism there.

Not likely, as long as the Israelis are shelling Palestinians at a picnic. (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/14773628.htm)

Brace for the Third Intifada. (http://antiwar.com/pat/)




.

[tstone]

From what I hear, the Coalition wasn't the only entity that had problems with this assclown. His monstrous tactics offended Iraqis as well. And he was a foreigner meddling in their affairs. Some may have disliked him as much as they dislike us.

[Space Tycoon]

I read this little tidbit some time ago about an operation undertaken allegedly by Zarqawi's men.

These hitmen wanted to kill an informant. So they went into his house when only the young son was present, killed the boy, cut him open, placed a bomb in his innards, sewed him up, and waited until the parents came home. When they discovered their dead son's body... BOOM!

I'm not making this up. That belongs in a horror film that couldn't even get made in South America.

Beyond sick.






.