About damn time
maybe this will slow at least one of the terrorest groups a little and let that country have a little time to get itslef in order
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.
- Thread starter Carol
- Start date
About damn time
maybe this will slow at least one of the terrorest groups a little and let that country have a little time to get itslef in order
tshadowchaser said:
Totally agreed. This will not be the end, but for anyone interested in peace in this region, its a very important step. I'd love for Iraq to be able to police themselves, and a very important step is taking out these maniacs that target both civilians and military. My hope is this knocks some common sense into the terrorist and gets the reconciliation started.
Excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down. I guess I don't "love freedom" and "hate terror" enough. 
Some people need to realize that a "well developed" sense of morality can veiw an act as morally reprehensible and unfortunately neccessary at the same time.
The bottom line is that this may be a big step towards ending this whole God aweful war and getting our people outta there.
Nuff Said.
If Conservatives want to turn this into some kind of political "look at the great job we are doing" moment, fine. Their track record says otherwise and American's have notoriously short memories when it comes to stunts like that.
Some people need to realize that a "well developed" sense of morality can veiw an act as morally reprehensible and unfortunately neccessary at the same time.
The bottom line is that this may be a big step towards ending this whole God aweful war and getting our people outta there.
Nuff Said.
If Conservatives want to turn this into some kind of political "look at the great job we are doing" moment, fine. Their track record says otherwise and American's have notoriously short memories when it comes to stunts like that.
michaeledward said:
This is a "happy moment" in warfare.
A terrorist who has been killing innocent civilians and planning these murders has been killed. A terrorist who beheaded civilians on TV has been killed. One of the leading terrorist in the region, behind many international terrorists and avowed followers of Bin Laden had been killed.
Yeah, its a pretty happy moment in warfare.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
mrhnau said:
And the death of the child in the house? 1,000 pounds of high explosives dropped on him or her.
And today, amidst the celebrations of our nation, a soldier from the 172 Stryker division died from small arms fire. A colleagues step-son is in that division, from Alaska. The news reports have not yet released a name.
I'm sure you will understand if I find that to be little reason for celebration. I find all of these moments, even if necessary, sad.
upnorthkyosa said:Excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down. I guess I don't "love freedom" and "hate terror" enough.
Some people need to realize that a "well developed" sense of morality can veiw an act as morally reprehensible and unfortunately neccessary at the same time.
Mind sharing why this is morally reprehensible and "unforunately" neccessary?
Yeah, I hope its a big step towards ending the conflict. I'd love to see Iraq emerge as a more powerful nation, self governed with a free people. Thats sort of the whole point.
I'd be content if Conversatives did not try to milk the situation. Report it as it is. State the facts. There is more left to do. However, I'd appreciate if the Left did the same thing. I see headlines like "does it really matter", "why did it take so long", "it won't make a difference", trying to make this as negative as possible. Is it possible it won't help? Possibly, I accept that, but it sure is not going to hurt.
I think thats one reason for my first post on this thread, not neccessarily a critic of ME, but as a statement that I don't want political bias to try and ruin a good event for the sake of politics. There is hardly no way this can be construed as a negative unless you: 1) want us to lose 2) think Islamic fundamentalism is fine and terrorism in Iraq is the way to go 3) think its better for Al-Zarqawi to live then to kill a family harboring him in a safe house 4) think his death is totally meaningless.
for points 1) and 2), if you believe that, then I have nothing to say to you. For 3), I beg you to consider the thousands that Al-Zarqawi killed, kidnapped, tortured and planned for the like. Its not pleasant, but I'd rather take out those harboring him than risk thousands more deaths. For 4), time will tell. I think the impact will be big. There will likely be another to rise, but not the same caliber of man. Time will tell.
Sapper6
3rd Black Belt
upnorthkyosa said:
you live by the sword, you die by the sword. al-Zarqawi was an enemy of the United States. his death or capture was necessary, however, you won't find troops packing their bags preparing to come home because of it.
you fight a war one battle at a time. however long it may take, perseverance pays off. the battle at home is most times harder than that taking place abroad.
i don't believe anyone is "parading" al-Zarqawi's death as a political "lookie here" stunt. his death is very newsworthy. the American people need to hear it. i sure haven't seen any "milking" of it.
there will certainly be others that step up and take his place. they too will most likely meet the same fate. and when they do, it will be in the news. you can choose to care or not care. it makes no difference. but i will tell you this; the soldiers in the sand are smiling from ear to ear.
Sapper6 said:
I've paid a bit of attention to the GOPs reaction, IMO, they certainly are at least "preening their feathers" a bit...
As far as the soldiers reaction, I'm sure they are grinning. It's a major accomplishment for them and I'm sure a few of them are thinking that its a major step towards getting back home.
...and I'm right with them on that thought.
michaeledward said:
"Last night was the first time that we have had definitive, unquestionable information as to exactly where [al-Zarqawi] was located, knowing that we could strike that target without causing collateral damage to other Iraqi civilians and personnel in the area," Caldwell said
Frankly, after dropping two 500lb bombs, I'm suprised there are not more deaths. When you drop big bombs, people die. You try your best to target those you want, and they obviously made the effort. The only way to insure absolute accuracy and fool proof killing of him would be to stick a knife in him when noone else is near. Otherwise there is always the risk of collateral damage.
I'm sorry for your colleagues loss. Sometimes big news overpowers personal losses. Today my wife had a relatively major surgery, so in that respects, its no cause for celebration. However, I can still decouple my sadness in the affairs from my happiness regarding Al-Zarqawi. I can understand how a death would make that difficult. My condolances to your colleague.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I don't want to leave the wrong impression. At this time, it is unknown if the soldier from Iraq was Dave's step son or not. Dave's step-son is in that division. Just waiting for Dave, for now.
American Soldiers are still dying. Soon we will reach 2,500 US deaths.
I also think that Michael Berg's interview on CNN this morning was interesting. CNN has not replayed the complete interview with Soledad O'Brien .... but some interesting clips are found at
www.crooksandliars.com
American Soldiers are still dying. Soon we will reach 2,500 US deaths.
I also think that Michael Berg's interview on CNN this morning was interesting. CNN has not replayed the complete interview with Soledad O'Brien .... but some interesting clips are found at
www.crooksandliars.com
mrhnau said:
People have already shared much of what I think. Its the "collateral damage" that really bothers me. Killing innocent people is morally reprehensible and unfortunately neccessary because of the circumstances our politicians have place our soldiers.
Look, I basically agree with what people are saying about Zarqawi. I've seen the "videos" where "he" beheaded people. However, I don't think that laughing and cheering and beating one's chest like its some sporting event is appropriate. And I think that it probably could make the situation worse. This sort of insensitive behavior is akin to dancing on the graves of the innocents who died. That is no way to "win the hearts and minds" of the people, IMO.
I find your 1-4 ways of viewing this scenario entirely artificial. I want you to imagine that you are a member of the village where Zarqawi was killed and that you personally know some of the innocent people who died. Perhaps they were your family members. And now you see Americans jumping up and down and shouting...
"GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
How are you going to feel about this? I think its a good bet that it might very well be construed as negative!
The bottom line is that even though this may be a big step towards ending the war, an even bigger step, IMO, would be a little more sensitivity and a little less of the "ridem cowboy" hootin and hollarin.
michaeledward said:
:asian:
killing innocents has happened as long as war has existed. Its not pleasant, but neither is the insanity that has been happening over there. I'd be happy if noone was killed at all, but thats not going to happen.upnorthkyosa said:
I'd be upset if my family were in the asprin family Clinton bombed, or the Chinese embassy. People going to work, doing their jobs. Honestly, if I aligned myself with Islamic Fundementalism, I'd probably be upset about the family maintaining the safe house (assuming thats what happened). I've also read varying reports that he was at a meeting there w/ other al quieda members. Details still fuzzy from what I can read. I'd still be sad if it were my family member and I did not agree, but as an adult, you make your own educated decisions. If they were harboring him, they knew who he was.
When you harbor one of the worlds most wanted terrorists, you put your family in harms way. When you keep your child with you at that time, you put your children in harms way. I'm sure they had families, and perhaps children too. To be sensetive would imply not supporting rabid terrorist, killing indescriminantly. You endanger youself, your family and those around you. Sad, but true.
Now, I'll tell you why I'm happy. Justice has been served. While we have killed a few possible innocents (don't know about degree of innocence yet), we have prevented the deaths of thousands more. While -no- deaths would be prefered, I'm happy with the choice of the "lesser of the two evils". Less Iraqi civilian deaths, less American deaths. I'm in favor of that. Tragic they lost a child, but how many children have been saved? We have possibly moved the time line for us getting out of Iraq (at least most of us). I'll be happy when they can take over their own security at last. Hopefully this moves that date back some.
Adept
Master Black Belt
upnorthkyosa said:
I actually disagree. If an action that would normally be construed as morally reprehensible (such as killing a child) is deemed necessary, then I believe it can no longer be considered morally wrong. Obviously the pro's outweight the con's, or else the action would not be deemed necessary, and once the balance swings towards the pro's, the action in question is no longer immoral. Utilitarian, possibly machiavellian, certainly. But it is how I feel on the subject.
mrhnau said:
frankly i don't give a hoot about folks doing the hokey pokey and high fiving zarqawi's piddling life being snuffed out. he got what he wanted so he must be in heaven getting his 72. everybody's happy.
BUT let's not kid ourselves about less deaths or that this going to bring a quick close to the war there cause the insurgency isn't being fueled much by al quada these days-- bombs are going to continue to go off- sunnis and shias will continue to slaughter each other- clans and gangs will continue to hash revenge hits and mob hits alike. US soldiers will continue being wounded and killed as long as they're there.
i recall how some general back 2004 said that after the first sweep of fallujah that yielded a 1000 or 2 dead insurgents-- that his troops had broken the back of the insurgency and the countless milestones and turning points that everyone keeps pointing to that changes nothing.
Adept said:
That does seem to be a logical point of view. We do not enjoy the fact that some slime ball brought a child into a place where they knew a terrorist was hiding and the child was killed as a result. But the alternative is not acceptable.
Back in WWII the U.S. Army Air Force used to start a bombing run on a factory from a good way out and spread out over a mile to get it. Everyone in that zone stood a good chance of dying just so we could take out one ball bearing factory.
I am jumping up and down in joy that a man who would have caused a whole lot of deaths is dead. I am not celebrating the death of the child. But I am celebrating in the knowledge that some things are needed. Just as the rains bring life, they drown a few people each year. It helps to keep things in perspective.
Don Roley said:
I am mostly in agreement with you (and I think most people here). This post sums up alot of what I think and feel about this. I'm not going to celebrate the killing of any human though. That doesn't seem right to me. I feel that it only greases the path with nationalistic fervor and will lead to even more killing neccessary and unneccessary.
upnorthkyosa said:
Some people need killing.
People, innocent children, will probably be saved by this man's death. That is a cause for celebration. We are agonizing over every innocent that gets caught in the crossfire. This animal targetted children when he could.
I still remember a photo of a man holding the corpse of his three year old nephew that had been killed in a bombing outside of a hospital. They set up a car bomb where they knew the main victims would not be those that carried rifles, but were the most innocent among us. If this action stopped even a few of these types of attacks where innocents were the main target, then I can only rejoice at his death.
May he rot in hell!!!!!
michaeledward said:
Anytime an innocent person is killed, be it by terrorist fire or US fire, it is a tragedy. However, innocent or not, it should be common sense for these people, that if they're hanging around a known terrorist, that they possibly could be putting their lives in his hands. Obviously if these people are associating with a terrorist, they don't care much for their own lives or the lives of their children.
Mike
Don Roley said:
And unfortunately, that is what these scum bags do. They'll hide out in areas populated by innocent people, people who want some freedom in the country where they live, in hopes that the US will not shoot or drop bombs, out of fear that they'll put innocent peoples lives in danger.
Just goes to show how much compassion a terrorist has..zero!
Mike
