Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead!

[Commander Obi-Wan]

I'm devastated. [/sarcasm]

 

That sums it up for me.

[The Doctor]

Umm...Doc, shouldn't you change your avatar before you post stuff like this?

Gandhi hated men like this as well. He hated everything they stood for. He may not have used the language I did, but his sentaments would have been the same, I think. I believe he would have said it more like this:

 

"A great evil has been removed from the world. While I regret that he had to die to atone for his crimes, he can no longer wreak havoc on the peace we work so hard to achieve. For that I am grateful."

 

Or something to that effect.

[Achilles]

Umm...Doc, shouldn't you change your avatar before you post stuff like this?

pwned

[RC-1162]

im with the Doc on this one. let that mother****er rot in pieces

[HerbieZ]

I don't see why everyone is cheering, his death will ultimately lead to about ten more terrorist attacks across the UK and USA. Despite the fact it's taken, what 5 years to actually kill him with a "lucky bomb" i would'nt in the slightest declare it a victory. Id much rather have seen him face trial and sit in an orange boilersuit for the rest of his life than die. It's great how the responses in this thread really have brought out the same anger that im sure Zarqawi felt towards America. Make me wonder if we are all so really different. We celebrate the death of a middle eastern man. They celebrate the death of a western man.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Finally, they killed someone who deserved it. I hope the dirty son of a bitch has fun burning in hell where he belongs.

 

Great, one more down and a hundred thousand to go...

[BastilaShanWeb]

I've never been happy about death or never said people deserved it, but that SOAB killed Ken Bigley an innocent Brit. As a BRIT I hope he's now happy wheere evr he is hopefully in Hell where terrorists belong.

[El Sitherino]

I gotta agree with Herbie. A bit of word replacement, and we'd be exactly the people we're claiming we "oppose".

[Prime]

So now that he is gone, terrorism is defeated and all the suicide bombings will stop.

 

Thank goodness that's over.

[Hayden Kered]

Good bye to that a** wipe. I saw the full video of him beheading Jason Berg, and any one that would do a disgusting act like that is not human. Their people might consider him a martyr, but at least he is dead.

 

Some thing I do not understand about the US Intelligence trying to find Bin Laden is they can hunt down and find online sexual predators anywhere, but they can't find one man(Bin Laden) who posts video and audio clips on line.

[Jae Onasi]

I gotta agree with Herbie. A bit of word replacement, and we'd be exactly the people we're claiming we "oppose".

 

Don't know about you, but I haven't beheaded anyone recently.

 

[TSR]

i wanted to say somethign philosophical

 

"sometimes the good thing to do is the less of two evils"

kill him? or let him live but stick him in a 4X5 cell for the rest of his life? i would choose the latter, make the b*****d pay.

let the f*****g b***h burn.

[Pavlos]

As I said, I would never condone the killing of anyone – for any reason… but that is just me being all “Ooh, we should get along.”

 

They whole problem is that a lot of you people are talking as though these terrorists will suddenly stop their attacks now; umm… no they won’t. What you fail to realise is that the forces “fighting against terrorism” are not fighting a force that thinks like you, or me. These are not Europeans on the battlefield – people who will be demoralised and distraught at a key-figure’s death to such an extent that they will run from the war. Like barbarians these fools have been promised eternity in paradise for blowing people up and where one man falls another will be there to take his place, the death of a leader does not demoralise it brings a new resolve to their cause: “Crush the infidels!” (To paraphrase, you understand.) It is an impossible war to wage; a war of shadows, cloaks, and daggers.

 

The reactions of the people in this thread cause me to agree with HerbieZ, change a few words here and there and we are as barbaric as the ones we seek to fight. I don’t need to cite quotations for you to understand how the man who spends all his life fighting evil will become the thing he battles against.

 

On the topic of having to remain in Iraq to spread “civilisation” and modern “proper” Westernised views: it all sounds a bit too much like Manifest Destiny to me… and I think we all know how that ended up. Iraq was the first of the oil wars and the aftermath is only forcing another culture down someone’s throat. I believe that criticism of belief and culture is perfectly acceptable – something to be encouraged, even. But this is not criticism this is forcibly changing a system, and we don’t even know if it will work out – Democracy (The least flawed of all the governmental systems) sure seems to be on its last legs.

 

Why? Because this battle against the “axis of evil” has already claimed so many of our civil liberties. There is such a thing as the power of fear and it is always convenient in bringing down democracy. Empire building and oil snatching are all it boils down to really… which is a shame.

[TSR]

didnt that manifest destiny the americans dreamed up mean the end of the plains indians? yes.

battle fo little big horn- general george armstrong custer. went against an indian camp, knowing he was outnumbered, the enemy had better weapons than his forces (i.e repeating rifles) and he was strategically losing before he started. he went ahead with the battle, and was "pwned". propoganda comes in here. outcry! Indians massacre american forces! what happens? the atrocity of the battle of wounded knee. thosuands of native american indian men, women and children, slaughtered in cold blood by americans. the remaining indians are put in reservations, taught how to farm, to go against their traditions which they have done for so long.

where are they now?

basically, it was the wrong way to go about things in Iraq. and now its over, the twisted facts which these terrorist get hold of make things worse. more propaganda. more killing. i'm not saying we should have let the tyranny continue, but we shouldnt have stormed in like we should. what do they have now?

maybe i've phrased this wrongly. maybe some of you are going to have a right benny at me. but im tired, have just had exams all week and am glad this b***h is dead.

[Pavlos]

didnt that manifest destiny the americans dreamed up mean the end of the plains indians? yes.

battle fo little big horn- general george armstrong custer. went against an indian camp, knowing he was outnumbered, the enemy had better weapons than his forces (i.e repeating rifles) and he was strategically losing before he started. he went ahead with the battle, and was "pwned". propoganda comes in here. outcry! Indians massacre american forces! what happens? the atrocity of the battle of wounded knee. thosuands of native american indian men, women and children, slaughtered in cold blood by americans. the remaining indians are put in reservations, taught how to farm, to go against their traditions which they have done for so long.

 

You did the OCR GCSE History exam too then ? I agree with everything you said - we should not have stormed into that country... it was wrong. What has it achieved except securing another site of a quickly running out resource? Very little.

[TSR]

eh. maybe that. or maybe i'm just clever:xp:. ( the answer is the former)

[Ztalker]

Imo, killing him won't stop the violence.

 

I personally have nothing againt the Islam in comon, but more against the cult-like Jihad-figures that take it to literally.

When Jesus, for instance, is mocked in...South Park, no-one cries, because we know it's satire, and not to be taken seriously. When some Denish artist make a cartoon about Mahammed, stuff is bombed.

 

In short terms...

There is a cultural difference between the West and East. Killing some terrorist leaders won't solve it. The only way we can 'solve' it is: (imo)

a) retreat and let democracy do it's job

b) conquer and force our ways, wich is WRONG

[HerbieZ]

Don't know about you, but I haven't beheaded anyone recently.

 

 

This really does apply to a topic which was featured in Kotor 1 in the Manaan court. The system of beheading isnt as barbaric as you'd believe and although it is shocking, it all boils down to culture. The fact they behead soldiers isnt shocking, the fact they film them being beheaded is.

 

But after reviewing a few things, the death of Zaqawi is a good thing as the head of the group of people has been killed. There will be alot of infighting for the new position, if armed forces can sucessfully eliminate the next new leader quickly, the second wave of infighting would crush the whole thing alltogether. /end Command & Conquer mode

[The Doctor]

I think some people are confused as to what those of us who are glad he's dead are saying.

 

Nobody has claimed that killing him will stop the terrorism. And nobody has said that it's all over now that he's gone. Far from it. But it's a damn good thing that this dirty ****tard is burning in hell all the same. I would have been happy to see him in a cell, yes - but I'm not complaining that he's dead, either.

 

Now, Herbie. Western terrorism works differently. People aren't killed specifically for the purpose of inspiring fear. The media takes advantage of death and destruction in our culture by bombarding us with conspiracy theories and the like. The terrorism practised by us does not kill people - the random (for lack of a better word) deaths that occurr are exploited and used against us. The big media people deserve prison - but not death. They don't kill people. Al-Zarqawi did. He deserved what he got.

[Pavlos]

I'm sorry, Doc, but I just don't think anyone should be killed, no matter what their crimes. "Two wrongs don't make a right" and so forth. It all puts across a bad image for the West... which is a problem. He was a bad man, yes he should not have done what he did but he should not have been killed either - simply on the grounds of the more evolved ethics we hopefully possess.

[The Doctor]

I'm not saying he should have been killed. If there was another way to do it that was feasible, then by all means, capture him. But there wasn't time. If the choice was to kill him now or wait God knows how long to get a chance to capture him... I'd prefer that he be stopped now.

[Pavlos]

Ah, I see your point. Though, I still would have preferred a non-violent course of action - sometimes I guess it is impossible.

[El Sitherino]

I have no issue with him being killed. I just think some of the comments being made are rather hypocritical in comparison to the messages the same people are saying about terrorists, etc.

[Jae Onasi]

@venom_tyrant--Custer was an idiot in that situation and ended up paying the price for it. The difference here is that we're not planning to send Americans over to take Iraqi's land for ourselves and homestead it (nor would I want to--way too hot for me). I'm sure we're going to ask for a break on oil prices and a location for a base or two, but the systematic removal of Indians from their land in the 1800's and what we're doing in Iraq are entirely different.

 

@Herbie--beheading, if done properly and everything goes appropriately, is very quick. If the spinal cord doesn't get severed high enough or completely, it takes longer and it's not a good death. I could get a lot more graphic with this but I don't want to gross out people.

 

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.

(snipped)

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.

 

Yes, I think we agree on nearly all.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here at all, btw and hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm sure the fundamentalists will think him a martyr up in paradise with milk and honey and virgins and all that. However, they'd find any excuse to continue their attacks. I don't think it makes any difference whether he's dead or in custody. If we had him in jail, they'd probably complain that we're not giving his toenail clippings the appropriate respect and decide to bomb another Iraqi site or blow up a US convoy for it.

 

And for others who've commented, I have zero illusions that his death is going to stop the violence, but I'm hoping that in the long run it'll slow it down enough for the Iraqis to get control of the situation so we can get everyone else out of there.

 

 

 

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.

 

cynical mode on--I don't know any high-ranking politicians who are 100% honest.

 

I might agree with your thoughts on Bush counting on that sentiment except for a couple things--if he found WMDs, he'd feel vindicated, and there was no way for him to anticipate the kind of fight that al-Qaeda put up. I really think he was expecting both to find those WMDs and for the war to be pretty much over and done with as soon as we took Baghdad. I was pretty convinced by what Colin Powell presented as satellite and other physical evidence for WMDs to the UN. I certainly don't agree with a good chunk of what Bush does, but I want to give a fair assessment. Hindsight is always 20/20 (6/6 for our metric friends ).

I don't feel like our family was taken advantage of, nor did I ever think you were disrespectful of any soldier's sacrifice (which I do appreciate). If Jimbo had been drafted, maybe I would feel like we were being taken advantage of. But he signed the dotted line of his own accord, and we both understood that this was a probability at some point in his career. I have some family in NYC and thank God they were not directly affected by 9/11, but because of what could happen to them if there's another attack on NYC, I'm actually glad we're not sitting back like wallflowers debating it to death in the UN and letting al-Qaeda get away with it, all debates about justification for being in Iraq aside.

On a tangent, do I think there are WMDs around? There's totally unsubstantiated rumors in the military community saying they got moved to Syria, and we don't want to jump into something with Syria to prove it. I wouldn't be surprised either way if it was true or false. However, the fact that he used Scud missiles on another country and nerve gas on the Kurds tell me he had to have something going on in weapons development and certainly the willingness to use them. I think Saddam is enough of a megalomaniac that he'd want to have WMDs just to say he had them, too.

 

I agree with you that I'd like to see a more clear plan of the endgame, but I also understand it's hard to say what and when the end will be. Not to mention saying certain specifics could give the enemy the edge, and I'm not interested in them having any more information that gives them some kind of advantage in getting our guys. Still, I think I'd like them to say 'when x, y, and z are met, we'll leave' if it could be done safely.

Civil war--I don't see any clear move for secession on any one group's part except for maybe the Kurds, and they seem to be willing to try out democracy for the moment. The Sunnis seem to be willing to try it as well for awhile. In that respect it's very different from Korea and Vietnam. Yes, there's a pretty good sized band of insurgents running around blowing up things, but it doesn't look to me like there's a large chunk of the population willing to join them to build enough of an army to really fight and secede. Also, there are no major powers supporting the insurgents--N. Korea and N. Vietnam had some support from Communist countries, and there's no equivalent supporting the insurgents at this point.

 

My musings for the moment.

[Pavlos]

I'm actually glad we're not sitting back like wallflowers debating it to death in the UN and letting al-Qaeda get away with it, all debates about justification for being in Iraq aside.

I understand your position on this; however, I don't agree with it (Entirely – I’ll come to that in a moment.) The UN was set up to remove the threat of another world engulfing war and I think, for the time being, it is serving its purpose. We need to discuss things rather than take action immediately and think of the consequences that action might have - and that is where the UN comes in.

 

The only problem is that with the USSR gone things are a lot more dangerous than they were before – I know this sounds weird. There is no counter-balance to the USA… they can throw their weight around all they like and they use the UN to legitimise an attack on a country (Whether it is right or wrong to do so I’m not debating) and then it strikes, if it doesn’t get permission then it does it anyway, seeing as how the US is the country that puts forwards the most money for this organisation.

 

So in that sense, the UN is starting to lose its power – there is nothing to keep the USA in check and the UN – funded primarily by American money – sure as hell can’t stop them invading somewhere. But we need somewhere to discuss matters, for without an international forum the modern world will fall apart. It may not be the best thing ever but I would prefer to discuss matters fully and come to a proper decision than just charging into somewhere.

 

The problem is when the USA and co. tend to act like vigilantes. So I agree with you and yet I don’t .

 

Now On Topic:

 

I think we could all benefit from being actually told what is going to happen when certain milestones are reached. Do we even have a roadmap of where to go with Iraq? I’m not well up on that topic.