The Doctor Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Finally, they killed someone who deserved it. I hope the dirty son of a bitch has fun burning in hell where he belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 While I agree that it is good he is gone... I don't think you should be exactly rejoicing at his death. Being a wimpy pacifist I don't think anyone should get killed, ever. But that isn't going to happen, is it? The man did a lot of evil deeds and I agree that he got what he deserved, I'm just unhappy that we have to go around killing people to achieve "freedom" (Often the lengths taken to achieve that freedom seem to encroach upon our civil liberties) from terrorism - it sends out a rather janus-faced image of the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvolo Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I agree with The Docter let him rot in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Methos Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 One down. One in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Call me ignorant, but who the hell is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi? And why do you people hate him so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Methos Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195017/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 OK, got some info now, but we all know that the situation in Iraq is controversial at best and we all know the U.S isn't as innocent as it presents itself (they are there for the oil, not for the people, everyone knows that). That guy could have indeed been a terrorist leader and if that's the case it is good that there's one less, but he could have just been someone who didn't want U.S. soldiers in his country, who did some things to try to drive them away and got killed for it. Again, since I don't really watch the news that much, you shouldn't take the stuff I've said too seriously, or personaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApoLLo- Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Glad old scramble brains is in pieces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I'm devastated. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceFightWMe12 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 OK, got some info now, but we all know that the situation in Iraq is controversial at best and we all know the U.S isn't as innocent as it presents itself (they are there for the oil, not for the people, everyone knows that). That guy could have indeed been a terrorist leader and if that's the case it is good that there's one less, but he could have just been someone who didn't want U.S. soldiers in his country, who did some things to try to drive them away and got killed for it. Again, since I don't really watch the news that much, you shouldn't take the stuff I've said too seriously, or personaly. No, we're basically there to repay the losers for 9/11 Though...with Bush at the helm, oil is another reason for our military movements in Iraq...though with gas prices soaring, I hardly see how this war is helping... That guy could have indeed been a terrorist leader and if that's the case it is good that there's one less, but he could have just been someone who didn't want U.S. soldiers in his country, who did some things to try to drive them away and got killed for it. I can tell just from that statement that you haven't been keeping too informed on the situation. It wasn't that he 'could' have been a terrorist, he was a terrorist, and one of the leading Al-Qaida members. It's not that he didn't want U.S. troops in 'his' country, he just wanted to blow up as many people as he possibly could. He's been found responsible for hundreds of bombings, terrorist movements, and he's personally beheaded several innocent Americans. There's no way in hell this man could be looked at as 'innocent'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Finally, they killed someone who deserved it. I hope the dirty son of a bitch has fun burning in hell where he belongs. Agreed. People like this make me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 Now all that needs to be done is get Bin Laden himself. Well... that's not all that needs to be done, but it would be a good start. I just don't see how he's evading them still... He's a 6'5" Arab on dialysis. Why is that so damn hard to find? Can't we just dump some New York sewer rats in those caves and flush him out or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 As much as there aren't any good guys left in the world and as much as I hate the US government's stance in the Iraqi war... Good f*cking riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 While I'm glad that he's been taken care of, I'm not as ecstatic as the government seems to be. Let's look at the track record: U.S. invasion of Iraq - "Mission Accomplished", "greeted as liberators" and all that jazz. While not necessarily a bad thing, certainly it has not gone as we had hoped. Uday and Qusay Hussein's deaths - Death blow to the Iraqi insurgency or...? Capture of Saddam Hussein - Surely this has to be the beginning of end. Right. and now: Al-Zarqawi Slain - Yes, I'm happy that he's dead, but I do have a few questions. 1) Reliable intelligence allowed us to pinpoint his location for a strategic air strike, but not for his capture? Congratulations, Islamic fundamentalists have another martyr compliments of us. Whoot. Yes, I understand that strategic bombers can be scrambled much more quickly than a special forces team can be briefed but I'm still stuck on the intelligence/martyr thing. Call me a pessimist. 2) Two 500 bombs were dropped on Al-zarqawi's location, yet there was still enough of him left over for identification via fingerprint verification and facial recognition? That one's a little hard for me to swallow as well. Here's to hoping that this really is the final piece that we needed to end this war and bring our troops home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 ^ I don't believe that we're being told everything about how he died. And frankly, I don't care, as long as there's one less monster in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hallucination Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 No, we're basically there to repay the fags for 9/11 1) Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the majority (if not all) of the bombers were Saudi Arabian. In fact, Hussein and bin Laden disliked each other. 2) Homophobic comments aren't cool. Well, it's good to see one problem dealt with, but I don't like people rejoicing at another person's death... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceFightWMe12 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 1) Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the majority (if not all) of the bombers were Saudi Arabian. In fact, Hussein and bin Laden disliked each other. 2) Homophobic comments aren't cool. Well, it's good to see one problem dealt with, but I don't like people rejoicing at another person's death... 1)I'm not talking about repaying Iraq, I'm talking about Al-Qaida. 2)I didn't really mean it in that context. Around here, 'fag' usually means 'idiot' or 'stupid'. Editing. 3)I find it rather sad that we're rejoicing over someone else's death as well...but to know how much blood was on this man's hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 I think, in the case of 'people' like Al-Zarqawi, it's alright to rejoice. He was a monster. Not a human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 1) Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the majority (if not all) of the bombers were Saudi Arabian. In fact, Hussein and bin Laden disliked each other. 2) Homophobic comments aren't cool. Well, it's good to see one problem dealt with, but I don't like people rejoicing at another person's death... Quoted for emphasis. The U.S./British claims that Iraq had direct ties to 9/11 have are (thus far) unsubstantiated. Along with the intel that indicated that Saddam was developing WMDs. To some it would seem that the purpose for our current situation in Iraq could only be: 1) Oil 2) End the tyranny of Saddam Hussein 3) Finish what Bush Sr. started 4) Any combination of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 and now: Al-Zarqawi Slain - Yes, I'm happy that he's dead, but I do have a few questions. 1) Reliable intelligence allowed us to pinpoint his location for a strategic air strike, but not for his capture? Congratulations, Islamic fundamentalists have another martyr compliments of us. Whoot. Yes, I understand that strategic bombers can be scrambled much more quickly than a special forces team can be briefed but I'm still stuck on the intelligence/martyr thing. Call me a pessimist. 2) Two 500 bombs were dropped on Al-zarqawi's location, yet there was still enough of him left over for identification via fingerprint verification and facial recognition? That one's a little hard for me to swallow as well. Here's to hoping that this really is the final piece that we needed to end this war and bring our troops home. I have the distinct feeling that a solid majority of Iraqis are not going to consider him a martyr. The guy was directly or indirectly responsible for killing lots of Iraqis along with Americans/Brits/etc. I had the chance to listen to Gen. Caldwell's briefing this am on the way to work. I do keep in mind that they aren't going to reveal everything (mainly to not burn their human intelligence). The way I understand it, they had to take him out quick, because they also took out some 17 other targets associated with him right after that. It wasn't just Zarqawi, it was a lot of his ring that they took out. These guys are also heavily armed and their 'safehouses' could have booby traps or mines around it. Not to mention that even the best special forces teams cannot do an insertion as quickly as a bomb can take the guy out, and as much as Zarqawi moved around, they might not have had enough time to get a team in before he escaped again. Bombs move a lot faster, and by the time you see it, it's too late. This way, the bomb gave no time for any lookouts to see something coming so that they could give him a warning. It also minimized casualties on our side if there were mines/traps/sniper guards/etc. at this safehouse--a bomb can't get hurt. Regarding how you can bomb the snot out of something and still have enough pieces left--I asked Jimbo (who's in the military), and he said if the bombs collapsed the building, it's entirely possible that people would be intact. It depends on the composition of the bomb, the location of the strike in the building, how fortified the building is, where they were in the building, that kind of thing. Knowing what I know now about the whole thing, we likely should not have gone into Iraq. However, since we're there now, we need to stay there til the job is done. I can't understand the ultimate sacrifice, but I can tell you both Jimbo and I (and our kids) sacrificed a lot when he got called to active duty for 18 months. It was not fun, but we also can't pull out too soon and have a nasty civil war develop that leads to another dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceFightWMe12 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 ^ Very well said, Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I have the distinct feeling that a solid majority of Iraqis are not going to consider him a martyr. The guy was directly or indirectly responsible for killing lots of Iraqis along with Americans/Brits/etc. Nor do I. My comment mentioned Islamic fundamentalists, not Iraqi citizens. Again, I don't mourn his death for an instant and am well aware of what he's responsible for. I had the chance to listen to Gen. Caldwell's briefing this am on the way to work. I do keep in mind that they aren't going to reveal everything (mainly to not burn their human intelligence). The way I understand it, they had to take him out quick, because they also took out some 17 other targets associated with him right after that. It wasn't just Zarqawi, it was a lot of his ring that they took out. Info that I didn't have. I look forward to hearing more about tonight on the way home. Thanks for sharing! These guys are also heavily armed and their 'safehouses' could have booby traps or mines around it. Not to mention that even the best special forces teams cannot do an insertion as quickly as a bomb can take the guy out, and as much as Zarqawi moved around, they might not have had enough time to get a team in before he escaped again. Bombs move a lot faster, and by the time you see it, it's too late. This way, the bomb gave no time for any lookouts to see something coming so that they could give him a warning. It also minimized casualties on our side if there were mines/traps/sniper guards/etc. at this safehouse--a bomb can't get hurt. Yep, hence my comment. Sounds like were (mostly) on the same page here. Still a shame that we had to risk making him a martyr to get him though. Regarding how you can bomb the snot out of something and still have enough pieces left--I asked Jimbo (who's in the military), and he said if the bombs collapsed the building, it's entirely possible that people would be intact. It depends on the composition of the bomb, the location of the strike in the building, how fortified the building is, where they were in the building, that kind of thing. More good info to have. Thank you (and Jimbo). Knowing what I know now about the whole thing, we likely should not have gone into Iraq. However, since we're there now, we need to stay there til the job is done. I can't understand the ultimate sacrifice, but I can tell you both Jimbo and I (and our kids) sacrificed a lot when he got called to active duty for 18 months. It was not fun, but we also can't pull out too soon and have a nasty civil war develop that leads to another dictatorship.I can't help but feel that Bush was counting on that being the sentiment. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the sacrifices that your family (and families like yours) have made. There is honor in serving your country. Still a shame that such sacrifices are cashed in to futher the political agendas of leaders that are less-than-honest with the people they were elected to serve. Considering that many "experts" are stating that civil war is going on regardless of our hesistation to label it as such, I hope that we don't get stuck in the middle of something that we can't win. As always, I appreciate your comments and your insights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Justice was served. I take no pleasure from the need to take the man's life. I'm not sure he could have been captured anyway. From his previous actions I would have expected him to commit suicide by blowing himself up before allowing himself to fall into the hands of his enemy. Knowing what I know now about the whole thing, we likely should not have gone into Iraq. However, since we're there now, we need to stay there til the job is done. I agree with this statement. I never supported my government's plans to invade Iraq and don't expect that I will ever support a policy of preemptive attacks when war has not been declared. Since Americans broke the existing system of Iraq government I believe we have a moral responsibility to restore Iraq to some sense of stability and order before we vacate the premises. However I believe I share Achilles concerns about how "finishing the job" is defined and getting into a "no-win" situation. From the reports I've seen and read I don't think we're there yet but the potential is nigh unto realization. History's lessons from Korea and Vietnam give me pause when considering the situation in Iraq. If the people of Iraq are not willing to overcome their religious and ethnical differences and find a way to work together then there will be no "win" for America. That is the only way a democratic solution will succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I agree with just about everything Jae has said. Regardless of the rather shady reasons for sending the troops into Iraq in the first place, it would be irresponsible for the US to pull out now and leave the Iraqi people in the lurch. I'm glad that Jimbo got back safe and sound! Q P.S. Yeah, I'm glad that murdering terrorist SOB is dead, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hallucination Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Finally, they killed someone who deserved it. I hope the dirty son of a bitch has fun burning in hell where he belongs. Umm...Doc, shouldn't you change your avatar before you post stuff like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.