MSNBC reports Al-Zarqawi killed in Iraq

[nbcrusader]

The "offensive" label is used to control the discussion, not evaluate the statement.

Hollywood should be big enough to take a jab now and again.

 

[Irvine511]

The "offensive" label is used to control the discussion, not evaluate the statement.

Hollywood should be big enough to take a jab now and again.

do i need to be here for this discussion or would a cardboard cut-out suffice?

 

[U2DMfan]

I apologize for offending you but not for what I said.

If you're anti-war then that means that you don't want to fight the terrorists (you = general term), and if you don't want to fight the terrorists then that means that you want them to continue doing what they're doing......

How ELSE would you defeat them if you don't fight them??

I'm not sure "antiwar" is really applicable to the situation.
Irvine said it was a false dichotomy, I tend to agree with that.
I think these days, there is a crowd that wants to win and a crowd that wants to lose. I don't mean to parse and play semantics here, but it is important to the way we all discuss these issues with each other. Do we make any real differences? No. But I think we'd all like to resolve things in our own minds, maybe we help each other in small ways.

With that said, pacifists don't live in the real world.
So if this is who you are talking about, then I'd agree.
It's nice to have this hippy idealism when you are 20 and full of ideas about the world, but eventually you'd like to think a dose of reality is served to these people. I wish I could be a pacifist, it's just not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. So if you have to fight a war, then you should fight to win, otherwise you are not only a fool, you're going to lose.

Speaking of this, if you should have to fight a war, has it ever been more apparent that fighting wars should be a very last option? So if by anti-war, you mean anti-Iraq war, I think there needs to be some context.

There is a leftist crowd that has reached a point where they'd probably favor a loss in Iraq, if not this, then a total withdrawal and failure if only because they hate the policy and the policy makers. So if you're talking about these people, then I'd agree as well.

But finally, there are tons of well-principled, well-thought, tough minded people who think the Iraq was was wrong in many different ways and that all it has done is intesify the terrorist problem, in fact making it worse. So these "antiwar" people, I don't think have any problem fighting terrorism, they just see through the poltical charade of false patritotism that plagues the right wing.

I think in the end, we need to start talking about the "anti-war" crowd in terms of those who want to win and those who don't.

If you don't want us to win, you've lost your fucking mind. You've disappeared up your own arse. If you want us to win, it hardly matters why you favor or oppose the politics of the war, because you aren't really 'anti-war' in terms of victory, you are only 'anti-war' to a select crowd of blinded partisan fools. Because they need you to support their politics as well. I've been doing my best to move past the politics of the situation, might not always work, but I think the picture is just getting bigger.

 

[A_Wanderer]

i think that's a misrepresentation of Michael Moore.

i also wonder if there aren't lines to be drawn up between the insurgency, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

that said, and it bothers me that i have to actually come out and say this but such is the current climate, i do not see either the insurgency or Al-Qaeda as forces of national liberation.

Then what is the proper context of his quote equating the Iraqi "resistance" to the American minutemen?

Another example is George Galloway who has made it abundantly clear in his platform that he is not anti-war, he is just pro-war for the other side.

 

[Shag On A Rock]

wow
i'm reading some pretty fucked up commentary in this thread
what the hell is wrong with some of you???

i think a few of you need to take a leaf out of Micheal Bergs book - a man who has closer ties to this situation than any of you can imagine

I agree.

Murder is wrong
Murdering the murderer is wrong.
Murder is wrong

 

[A_Wanderer]

Murdering a murderer who would murder many more is less wrong than leaving the murderer to murder multitudes.

 

[BVS]

Murdering a murderer who would murder many more is less wrong than leaving the murderer to murder multitudes.

and how many innocents getting killed along the way is acceptable?

The rules or war are wierd aren't they?

 

[Shag On A Rock]

Celebrating murder is wrong
Celebrating murdering the murderer is wrong.
Celebrating murder is wrong.

I'm not good with English. I'm EFL. But you know what I'm trying to say.

Murder is bad, badder than bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

 

[A_Wanderer]

and how many innocents getting killed along the way is acceptable?

The rules or war are wierd aren't they?

It would be unnaceptable for an attack to be launced in the knowledge of inflicting any civilian casualties.

 

[BVS]

It would be unnaceptable for an attack to be launced in the knowledge of inflicting any civilian casualties.

So as long as there's no "knowledge" it doesn't matter the number?

 

[U2DMfan]

Celebrating murder is wrong
Celebrating murdering the murderer is wrong.
Celebrating murder is wrong.

I'm not good with English. I'm EFL. But you know what I'm trying to say.

Murder is bad, badder than bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Define murder.

I know what you're trying to say, but apparently you don't understand the capacity to defend oneself. Or do you?
I'll let you explain if you'd like.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I didn't say that it doesn't matter, I said that if civilian casualties were a definite concequence of a strike then it wouldn't be right to take that strike. If the decision was made then it may well be unacceptable and deserving of reprimand.

That is a seperate issue from inadvertant civilian deaths which do tend to happen in situations where an enemy deliberately blurs the distinction between civilian and fighter. These can be minimised with effective procedure and practice, the US military has come a long way from the Free Fire Zones of Vietnam.

 

[deep]

I didn't say that it doesn't matter, I said that if civilian casualties were a definite concequence of a strike then it wouldn't be right to take that strike. If the decision was made then it may well be unacceptable and deserving of reprimand.

.

with this case

the colateral damage

will not get much play



however there are many cases where bombs have been used
knowing there were multiple others in buildings with the target.

these could be called murder
the "willful taking of innocent life."

 

[deep]

If the decision was made then it may well be unacceptable and deserving of reprimand.

and statements like this
make me again say
I find your thinking detached and bizarre.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I say that there is a distinction between a case where the intelligence says that there is a terrorist hiding out in a house shared by a family and then launching a missile strike versus a situation where the information says that there isn't a family in the building.

You insist that it is detatched and bizare, could you elaborate?

 

[BVS]

Define murder.

I know what you're trying to say, but apparently you don't understand the capacity to defend oneself.

Defend? You do realize this was a war of choice and we went in there unprovoked? I hope you realize this.

 

[deep]

And I say that there is a distinction between a case where the intelligence says that there is a terrorist hiding out in a house shared by a family and then launching a missile strike versus a situation where the information says that there isn't a family in the building.

You insist that it is detatched and bizare, could you elaborate?

fair question

as you describe
is not the case.

i say they knowingly send in planes with 500 pound bombs knowing there are other occupants in buildings with targets

if they knew there was a woman and baby in Al-Zarqawi building it would not have mattered
and there will not be much of an out cry about killing innocents because he was so hated.


the detachment I refer to
is saying a reprimant is sufficient for killing many innocent civilans
that was the case below.

The investigation of the March 15 attack in Ishaqi concluded the U.S. troops followed normal procedures in raising the level of force as they came under attack upon approaching a building where they believed an al-Qaida terrorist was hiding, said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S military spokesman.

Caldwell also acknowledged there were “possibly up to nine collateral deaths” in addition to the four Iraqi deaths that the military announced at the time of the raid.

 

[Rono]

Another "we got him "moment that will not change a lot. Good that he is gone but i have heard that he is responsable for about 10 % of the attacks. The fact that he was fighting in person also make me think that he was expecting to be killed one day so i guess new leaders are already in place.


My thoughts go out to the child that is killed and his name is collateral damage.

 

[U2DMfan]

Defend? You do realize this was a war of choice and we went in there unprovoked? I hope you realize this.

Uh, of course I realize that. Did you miss the context of the discussion or do you assert that all of this killing is murder because of the politics that got us into the war?

I am only talking about soldiers having the right to defend themselves by killing those trying to kill them. Not the US defending itself against the wrath of Sadaam's tin can army.

 

[U2doggie]

Good that he is gone but i have heard that he is responsable for about 10 % of the attacks. The fact that he was fighting in person also make me think that he was expecting to be killed one day so i guess new leaders are already in place.

I'm curious about the "10%" thing-----please elaborate.
Also, i'm wondering how he was "fighting in person?" He was running things while hiding. His messages to the world, as well as the beheadings he personally carried out, were presented on videotape---not in person.

Anyway, I'm glad he's gone.

 

[maycocksean]

I find the reaction from Nick Berg's father quite interesting. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but still curious.




http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html

Michael Berg, father of American businessman Nicholas Berg, whom is it believed al-Zarqawi beheaded in May 2004

"I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed and I feel badly for that.

"I feel doubly badly, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do not ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. It's an endless cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence we will always have violence."


I find Mr. Berg's remarkable and filled with the type of humanity this world needs more of. (I'm sure Ann Coulter would have a very different take on Mr. Berg, however).

Personally, I think it is for the best and helpful that Zarqawi is gone, but I think it's in poor taste to celebrate and hope for additional (and eternal) suffering for him.

War is serious buisness--necessary business, sometimes-- and it should be approached with solemnity due to the fact that we're dealing with taking human lives. This war in Iraq, was, I believe unnecessary and has done more harm than good, but now that we are there we really have to finish what we started. And if that means killing one of the most dangerous leaders of the insurgency than so be it. But to whoop and holler about it, to me shows a certain amount of ignorance about the nature of war and the toll it takes not just on the dead but those who survive it.

War is ugly, fucked up buisness, and it should never be entered into lightly.

I'd also add that the U.S. is not the "world's greatest terrorist". Hyperbole from the left or the right irritates me to no end and doesn't help the overheated political climate we're already living in.

Finally, regarding "collateral damage"--again expecting a war to take place and no innocents be killed is really wishful thinking. As I said before war is ugly, fucked up business and let me add that it is also messy. I think the U.S. so far has made a commendable effort to avoid "collateral damage" and I think that's the most anyone can expect. It would be one thing if we were setting off bombs in supermarkets or hotels where weddings are taking place hoping to hit a few stray terrorists in the process.

 

[DaveC]

Good fucking riddance.

 

[BVS]

Uh, of course I realize that. Did you miss the context of the discussion or do you assert that all of this killing is murder because of the politics that got us into the war?

I am only talking about soldiers having the right to defend themselves by killing those trying to kill them. Not the US defending itself against the wrath of Sadaam's tin can army.

Then you are missing the context completley...

There is no "defense" in this war, unless it's the unforunate solidier that is attacked.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I cant believe this thread. Yet, I can, as well.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Most people don't and won't "celebrate" his death-I don't celebrate it but on the other hand he was an evil terrorist killer. That doesn't mean I celebrate his death but he was.

The whole situation there is sad and ugly beyond words, and no terrorist death can change that. Won't change the situation there and won't change the fact that people are dying there every day. Tragically, unnoticed, forgotten. Pictures not held up in a gold frame for the world to see. Children, mothers, fathers, young men, young women.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I agree with you, Mrs S.

 

[The Disciple]

Sayonara, M.F.'er!!!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't celebrate his death but I also don't think the fact that I'm glad he is gone so that he can't kill and carry out terrorist acts anymore makes me a horrible person either. Obviously there are plenty of others who will step in an carry on his activities, so ultimately this changes nothing and isn't the solution for eradicating terrorism.


huffingtonpost

"This struck me as instantly odd: The White House released its "Statement by the President on Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" press release at 7:31a.m. EDT, and included a photo of a sombre-faced President Bush delivering the statement in the Rose Garden as he gripped the podium, tensely focused. Too bad it was but a thumbnail compared to the photo at left. Who, exactly, thought it would be a good idea to include this picture of Bush kicking back on the phone in the Oval Office? This photo does not say "We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continued patience of the American people," it says "Yo, Tony! Howsabout we grab a brewsky later over nachos in the West Wing kitchenette?" I have no idea if there is a West Wing kitchenette but I do know that this is probably not the most effective photograph to convey a stronger, more presidential Bush."

 

[phanan]

What I find interesting is that the military said they got an inside tip on Zarqawi's whereabouts, and there were previously scattered reports suggesting Al Quaida was at odds with Zarqawi over several matters (can't remember off the top of my head).

My thought is, what if it was Al Quaida who purposely tipped off his location to get rid of him?

 

[Irvine511]

War is serious buisness--necessary business, sometimes-- and it should be approached with solemnity due to the fact that we're dealing with taking human lives. This war in Iraq, was, I believe unnecessary and has done more harm than good, but now that we are there we really have to finish what we started. And if that means killing one of the most dangerous leaders of the insurgency than so be it. But to whoop and holler about it, to me shows a certain amount of ignorance about the nature of war and the toll it takes not just on the dead but those who survive it.

War is ugly, fucked up buisness, and it should never be entered into lightly.