Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.

[MartialIntent]

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.

While I certainly agree with your sentiment as nice in theory, how quickly we have forgot those perverse scenes of jubilation and exactly this "jumping up and down and shouting" you describe, that we all witnessed widespread across the middle east after the horrors of 9/11.

I'm afraid for me there should be absolutely no compunction on the part of civilians like ourselves in *any* warring country to be sensitive towards their opponents - quite the opposite in fact, and especially since it would seem apparent by the continued hostilities towards allied troops out there and persistent "threats" of further actual jihad action here in the UK and elsewhere that they have no such empathy for us, our social liberties or our civil and personal rights.

Officially yes of course there are war treaties to be followed and there is certainly a precedent within many moral dictates to suggest we should hold more caring views of our enemies, but personally I think it's getting far too easy to abandon the "team" we should belong to for the sake of assuming some higher moral viewpoint [not you personally] over the mere proletariat; a part of which I'm absolutely unashamed to count myself.

Again I say, well done to those who had a hand in Zarquawi's assassination. This man was a highly committed indivudual; very driven to an eventual final outcome and I for one take heart in the fact that there will be no further orchestration by him personally in this already very damaging conflict.

Respects!

 

[Kensai]

An emotive subject to say the very least... Where to begin, what to say...

I served in the 2nd Gulf war in the RN, had a mate killed, was shot at, a deeply, deeply unpleasant experience. I do speak from direct experience, but in my opinion (disclaimer - that's all it is ) a total sham war. Yes, I'll not shed a tear for this guy, and the comment about how he now has what he wants with his 72 is spot on. However.... There are MANY countries that have morally reprehensible regimes, that we in the West do NOTHING to remove. Oh yes, we sabre rattle, make lots of noises at the UN, but we don't DO much.

The truth always depends upon a certain view, and while I'm certainly not condoning this cretin, and am perfectly content that he's no longer a member of the human gene-pool. BUT. To several tens of millions of Muslims, he wasn't a terrorist, he would have been regarded as a freedom fighter. Crazy? Yes, screwed up? Of course. In our eyes... In theirs, Bush is the same. Nothing more than a terrorist. This isn't JUST about Islamic fundamentalism, it's also the way that America is viewed in the world, and it's that view that's bought it into conflict now. Two areas of the world with COMPLETELY alien cultures. Islam, and the US. Governments always need an enemy, otherwise, why pay several hundred billion dollars on defence?

To conclude, I'd say that his death will not stop the events in Iraq, but the world as a whole will not mourn his death. It SHOULD hopefully slow events down, (if it doesn't make him a martyr) and perhaps Iraq can begin a slow rebuild to normality. Let's hope so.

 

[michaeledward]

While I certainly agree with your sentiment as nice in theory, how quickly we have forgot those perverse scenes of jubilation and exactly this "jumping up and down and shouting" you describe, that we all witnessed widespread across the middle east after the horrors of 9/11.

I do not recall 'widespread' 'jumping up and down and shouting' after 911. There were some instances of that, but that description is not in line with the reality of the events.

The vast majority of the world was horrified with the events on 911. That is as true from the Kingdom of Saud to the streets of Tehran to Europe, Asia and South America.

To describe such behavior is to create a revisionist version of history.

 

[michaeledward]

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

. . . and Mike, this reply is not directly tied to your quote alone....

But, this was not a battlefront attack ... this was a targeted assassination. I read a rather thoughtful piece last night questioning the policy of targeted assassinations ... and do they serve the objective intended.

Should the United States military be in the policy of using this technique, targeted assassination? When is it appropriate, when is it not appropriate? How has it worked out for other countries that use this technique?

My, this does create some interesting thoughts, doesn't it.

 

[mrhnau]

I do not recall 'widespread' 'jumping up and down and shouting' after 911. There were some instances of that, but that description is not in line with the reality of the events.

The vast majority of the world was horrified with the events on 911. That is as true from the Kingdom of Saud to the streets of Tehran to Europe, Asia and South America.

To describe such behavior is to create a revisionist version of history.

Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.

the vast majority of the world was horrified, but not all of them. Take off the blinders dude.

 

[MartialIntent]

I do not recall 'widespread' 'jumping up and down and shouting' after 911. There were some instances of that, but that description is not in line with the reality of the events.

The vast majority of the world was horrified with the events on 911. That is as true from the Kingdom of Saud to the streets of Tehran to Europe, Asia and South America.

To describe such behavior is to create a revisionist version of history.

Well I ain't sufficiently omnipotent to think I'd know anything of "the vast majority" - but at the end of the day, it's all propaganda after all, just depends on who you choose to support [and I know who I'm with].

However, this Middle Eastern triumphalist jumping up and down is exactly the image that filled my screen and scored my eyes on the eve of 9/11. And it's an image I don't think I'll forget.

I won't pursue this argument gratuitously. I can see little to be gained from this tirade of second guessing the folk that are out there doing their jobs and similarly the haranguing of the police we've had last year here in the UK for shooting a suspected suicide bomber.

The only motivation or basis I can envisage [call me limited] for anyone continuing these hollow arguments and attempting to engender that ensuing cynical attitude in people against their own forces is disruption and fostering of disunity. Personally, this is a thing I'm afraid I find distasteful.

Respects!

 

[mantis]

Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.

the vast majority of the world was horrified, but not all of them. Take off the blinders dude.

those images were broadcasted right after 911 but they did not actually happen after 911. If you recall the images broadcasted in palestine for instance had a pretty clear day light. The images were broadcasted less than 1 hour after 911. but at the time 911 happened it was already the night in palestine. I am just amazed how people always fall for poor fabrication of videos.

 

[michaeledward]

Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.

the vast majority of the world was horrified, but not all of them. Take off the blinders dude.

The blinders are not on.

Please read my post .. Quote

There were some instances of that

The anticedent to the pronoun 'that' is 'widespread jumping up and down and shouting'.

I guess the term 'widespread', as used by MartialIntent means that the event made it to a television screen. I guess that's why the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations are WideSpread at military funerals. The whole world is protesting military funerals, eh? Or Natalie Hollaway's disappearence must be indicative of 'widespread' abductions of blond girls getting drunk, right?

 

[michaeledward]

Well I ain't sufficiently omnipotent to think I'd know anything of "the vast majority" - but at the end of the day, it's all propaganda after all, just depends on who you choose to support [and I know who I'm with].

However, this Middle Eastern triumphalist jumping up and down is exactly the image that filled my screen and scored my eyes on the eve of 9/11. And it's an image I don't think I'll forget.

I won't pursue this argument gratuitously. I can see little to be gained from this tirade of second guessing the folk that are out there doing their jobs and similarly the haranguing of the police we've had last year here in the UK for shooting a suspected suicide bomber.

The only motivation or basis I can envisage [call me limited] for anyone continuing these hollow arguments and attempting to engender that ensuing cynical attitude in people against their own forces is disruption and fostering of disunity. Personally, this is a thing I'm afraid I find distasteful.

Respects!

What a strange way to close this post. As the content of the post seems to show so little respect.

Regarding news reports of the world reaction after 911, it does not require omnipotent discernment; just the ability to read the news. And if you believe that all news is propaganda, then belief of anything must be in doubt.

As for motivations, that you are unable to discern motivations beyond your description, does not mean there are not other motivations. It would seem that propaganda does limit much.

 

[hapki68]

I'm not a subject of the British monarchy and won't offer an opinion on events in the UK.

However, when it comes to the U.S...

Whereas some may find "second guessing" their government unpatriotic, I believe it's unpatriotic not to do so. The U.S. is not Saudi Arabia, thank Allah, particularly because we have a free press, civil society and citizens who can express their views.

For example, does anyone still think Vietnam was a good idea? Jesus Christ, even Former Defense Secretary MacNamara has said it was a mistake and that's after tens of thousands of lives were lost! Who out there knows more about that war than he does??? Thank god patriots with brains were questioning or the numbers would be higher.

And I don't remember right-wingers supporting blindly their government when Clinton had been democratically elected. Far from it. They attempted to remove the democratically-elected President through baseless scandals (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate. Remember those gems?). After spending $40 million in taxpayer dollars and coming up empty handed, they discovered he got a 3 minute blowjob. Whoo-hoo!

The "you're not supporting our troops when questioning the government" line is wrong. Americans have a patriotic responsibility to question -- and keep questioning -- when other Americans are sent anywhere to put their lives on the line for us.

Patrick

 

[Kensai]

I'm not a subject of the British monarchy and won't offer an opinion on events in the UK.

However, when it comes to the U.S...

Whereas some may find "second guessing" their government unpatriotic, I believe it's unpatriotic not to do so. The U.S. is not Saudi Arabia, thank Allah, particularly because we have a free press, civil society and citizens who can express their views.

For example, does anyone still think Vietnam was a good idea? Jesus Christ, even Former Defense Secretary MacNamara has said it was a mistake and that's after tens of thousands of lives were lost! Who out there knows more about that war than he does??? Thank god patriots with brains were questioning or the numbers would be higher.

And I don't remember right-wingers supporting blindly their government when Clinton had been democratically elected. Far from it. They attempted to remove the democratically-elected President through baseless scandals (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate. Remember those gems?). After spending $40 million in taxpayer dollars and coming up empty handed, they discovered he got a 3 minute blowjob. Whoo-hoo!

The "you're not supporting our troops when questioning the government" line is wrong. Americans have a patriotic responsibility to question -- and keep questioning -- when other Americans are sent anywhere to put their lives on the line for us.

Patrick

That's spot on...

 

[MartialIntent]

What a strange way to close this post. As the content of the post seems to show so little respect.

Regarding news reports of the world reaction after 911, it does not require omnipotent discernment; just the ability to read the news. And if you believe that all news is propaganda, then belief of anything must be in doubt.

As for motivations, that you are unable to discern motivations beyond your description, does not mean there are not other motivations. It would seem that propaganda does limit much.

Thank you for these comments.

Respects!

 

[MJS]

Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.

Yes, I too, recall alot of 'celebration' after 9/11. People having quite the party, people passing out candy to the kids, etc.

Mike

 

[MJS]

. . . and Mike, this reply is not directly tied to your quote alone....

But, this was not a battlefront attack ... this was a targeted assassination. I read a rather thoughtful piece last night questioning the policy of targeted assassinations ... and do they serve the objective intended.

Should the United States military be in the policy of using this technique, targeted assassination? When is it appropriate, when is it not appropriate? How has it worked out for other countries that use this technique?

My, this does create some interesting thoughts, doesn't it.

Yes, this does bring up some good questions. I'll be the first to admit that I am not into politics, nor am I as up to date as some, when it comes to these types of discussions, so thats one of the reasons I rarely frequent "The Study."

I do feel though, that given the habits of the terrorists, how they hide out, move cautiously, etc. that these types of attacks are probably the best course of action. I would think that if we did an obvious attack, the chances for escape would probably be much greater.

I guess we can sit here and debate for page after page, which I might add, does prove for some interesting reading, but in reality, no matter what we think of the actions of the military, they're going to do what they want. Like I said in my first post...we succeeded in getting rid of a top guy in the org. but this is by no means an end to the problem. It'll be a matter of time, and someone else will step up to fill his spot.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

Mike

 

[heretic888]

I'm not a subject of the British monarchy and won't offer an opinion on events in the UK.

However, when it comes to the U.S...

Whereas some may find "second guessing" their government unpatriotic, I believe it's unpatriotic not to do so. The U.S. is not Saudi Arabia, thank Allah, particularly because we have a free press, civil society and citizens who can express their views.

For example, does anyone still think Vietnam was a good idea? Jesus Christ, even Former Defense Secretary MacNamara has said it was a mistake and that's after tens of thousands of lives were lost! Who out there knows more about that war than he does??? Thank god patriots with brains were questioning or the numbers would be higher.

And I don't remember right-wingers supporting blindly their government when Clinton had been democratically elected. Far from it. They attempted to remove the democratically-elected President through baseless scandals (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate. Remember those gems?). After spending $40 million in taxpayer dollars and coming up empty handed, they discovered he got a 3 minute blowjob. Whoo-hoo!

The "you're not supporting our troops when questioning the government" line is wrong. Americans have a patriotic responsibility to question -- and keep questioning -- when other Americans are sent anywhere to put their lives on the line for us.

Patrick

Patrick,

It appears that a majority of Americans right now agree with you on this:

Poll: Majority support troops, not Iraq war

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, this does bring up some good questions. I'll be the first to admit that I am not into politics, nor am I as up to date as some, when it comes to these types of discussions, so thats one of the reasons I rarely frequent "The Study."

I do feel though, that given the habits of the terrorists, how they hide out, move cautiously, etc. that these types of attacks are probably the best course of action. I would think that if we did an obvious attack, the chances for escape would probably be much greater.

I guess we can sit here and debate for page after page, which I might add, does prove for some interesting reading, but in reality, no matter what we think of the actions of the military, they're going to do what they want. Like I said in my first post...we succeeded in getting rid of a top guy in the org. but this is by no means an end to the problem. It'll be a matter of time, and someone else will step up to fill his spot.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

Mike

Mike, thank you for your thoughtful participation. I've said it before, here in the study, all of our opinions can carry equal weight, whereas, in discussions about kenpo, your years of training, trump my relatively new status in the art.

I would suggest that we citizens have, at some level, a responsibility to have an opinion on the subject of 'target assassinations' (or rendering of prisons to other states ... or detentions without council ... or aggressive interrogation methos ... or torture). Because in our country, the military is governed by civilians. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and he answers to the President, who is also a civilian. Thus, if the military types take actions with which we in the populace do not agree, we have the opportunity to alter the leadership of that organization. In the 2004 election, Guantano Bay was not an unknown, nor the detention of Jose Padilla. But the majority of citizens (apparently) choose to keep the government that undertook these actions. It seems to me the action of a fearful nation ... but we've had that discussion elsewhere.

But, if the terrorists move and hide and communicate in obscure ways, is the military the correct instrument to catch, detain, or kill them? If we were to decide that 'targeted assassinations' were an appropriate policy for combating terrorists, the next question becomes, is a laser guided 500 pound bomb the correct tool to execute that policy? How has this policy worked for Israel?

My fear is that through a clumsy action, we have created the Hydra. The unintended consequences might be increased recruitment to terrorist camps. Perhaps a CIA 'splinter cell' type assassination was not possible ... the silent disappearance of al-Zarqawi. But will the photos of his corpse on the front page of every newspaper and website reduce recruitment, or enflame it?

 

[MJS]

Mike, thank you for your thoughtful participation. I've said it before, here in the study, all of our opinions can carry equal weight, whereas, in discussions about kenpo, your years of training, trump my relatively new status in the art.

Thanks for the compliment.:asian: And as far as your comment regarding Kenpo, IMHO, I feel that just because someone may not be as highly ranked or have as many years in as some, that does not mean that their opinion holds less weight. I've had some good discussion with you in the Kenpo area and you've brought up some very good points.

I would suggest that we citizens have, at some level, a responsibility to have an opinion on the subject of 'target assassinations' (or rendering of prisons to other states ... or detentions without council ... or aggressive interrogation methos ... or torture). Because in our country, the military is governed by civilians. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and he answers to the President, who is also a civilian. Thus, if the military types take actions with which we in the populace do not agree, we have the opportunity to alter the leadership of that organization. In the 2004 election, Guantano Bay was not an unknown, nor the detention of Jose Padilla. But the majority of citizens (apparently) choose to keep the government that undertook these actions. It seems to me the action of a fearful nation ... but we've had that discussion elsewhere.

Well, I'd think that just like when a town or city wants to do something that could possibly raise taxes, the citizens of that town/city have a vote. I'm sure if it came to a poll or vote on whether or not to use these types of attacks, we'd certainly see some interesting replies. Then again, would the votes really matter? We've seen countless polls on the war and after how many years, we're still there.

But, if the terrorists move and hide and communicate in obscure ways, is the military the correct instrument to catch, detain, or kill them? If we were to decide that 'targeted assassinations' were an appropriate policy for combating terrorists, the next question becomes, is a laser guided 500 pound bomb the correct tool to execute that policy? How has this policy worked for Israel?

If I recall correctly, didn't Israel use a unmanned drone to target the caravan of cars carrying some leader of some org.? Personally, off the top of my head, I can't really think of another solution. I suppose someone could join the terror group, on hopes of assassinating some of the top guys, but I doubt a low level terrorist would be able to get close enough to the top guys to do such a thing. Could the ground troops have stormed the safe house? Possibly, but that could have ended up in a big fire fight, with the potential for more troop loss as well as the possible escape of the target.

My fear is that through a clumsy action, we have created the Hydra. The unintended consequences might be increased recruitment to terrorist camps. Perhaps a CIA 'splinter cell' type assassination was not possible ... the silent disappearance of al-Zarqawi. But will the photos of his corpse on the front page of every newspaper and website reduce recruitment, or enflame it?

Oh, I'm sure it'll be a matter of a few days, and we'll see the editorial section of the papers filled with articles written from people who think that posting this guys face on the page was in poor taste, people complaining that their 5 yo child saw the pic and asked a ton of questions, etc. etc. Personally, I have to wonder about those types of people. I mean, come on, you can't even turn on the TV without seeing someone getting shot, blown up, in bed, or half naked. We should be used to it by now.

Mike

 

[Kensai]

Mike, thank you for your thoughtful participation. I've said it before, here in the study, all of our opinions can carry equal weight, whereas, in discussions about kenpo, your years of training, trump my relatively new status in the art.

I would suggest that we citizens have, at some level, a responsibility to have an opinion on the subject of 'target assassinations' (or rendering of prisons to other states ... or detentions without council ... or aggressive interrogation methos ... or torture). Because in our country, the military is governed by civilians. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and he answers to the President, who is also a civilian. Thus, if the military types take actions with which we in the populace do not agree, we have the opportunity to alter the leadership of that organization. In the 2004 election, Guantano Bay was not an unknown, nor the detention of Jose Padilla. But the majority of citizens (apparently) choose to keep the government that undertook these actions. It seems to me the action of a fearful nation ... but we've had that discussion elsewhere.

But, if the terrorists move and hide and communicate in obscure ways, is the military the correct instrument to catch, detain, or kill them? If we were to decide that 'targeted assassinations' were an appropriate policy for combating terrorists, the next question becomes, is a laser guided 500 pound bomb the correct tool to execute that policy? How has this policy worked for Israel?

My fear is that through a clumsy action, we have created the Hydra. The unintended consequences might be increased recruitment to terrorist camps. Perhaps a CIA 'splinter cell' type assassination was not possible ... the silent disappearance of al-Zarqawi. But will the photos of his corpse on the front page of every newspaper and website reduce recruitment, or enflame it?

Good last point. The problem with any fundamentalism, and in particular Islam, is the risk of matyrdom... I think it would be best simply to move on from here, as efficiently and quietly as possible. However, as politicians will see it as a coup, I doubt that will happen.

Politicians do rely on peoples fear. Don't give it to them. Become aware of the world around you, the people, the cultures, a lot can happen because of ignorance. Ask yourself about US foreign policy. 50 years ago was the US subject to attack by Islamic fundamentalism? Or is it something that has arisen through increasing American intervention in several spheres of influence that contain Islamic culture. I know a lot of what the US does is at the worlds behest, and to an extent a lot of the nonsense that America has to endure is due to being the "top-dog". The same was said of the British 100 years ago, of the Romans, etc etc... The flip side is however, that you must accept that not everyone wants democracy, an alien concept I know, but they don't. Not everyone wants "the American dream" either. The world without American leadership is one full of doubt. The world with "sensible" American leaders is much better. Don't withdraw from the world, just get to know it better.

 

[CanuckMA]

those images were broadcasted right after 911 but they did not actually happen after 911. If you recall the images broadcasted in palestine for instance had a pretty clear day light. The images were broadcasted less than 1 hour after 911. but at the time 911 happened it was already the night in palestine. I am just amazed how people always fall for poor fabrication of videos.

Methink you need to have a look at that time zone thing. That part of the world is 7 hours ahead us the US east coast. 9/11 happened around 0900. It would have been 1600 in the ME. Hardly night time.

 

[Don Roley]

Well, it looks like the bastard had time to suffer a little before he died.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi


Sorry to interupt the conversation, but I thought I would post something relating to the thread title.

It looks like there were no children killed, if the latest reports are to be believed. That is a great relief. Two women were killed, but anyone who is an adult and made a choice to be near this guy does not get any sympathy from me.

Oh, and instead of blowing him away when they recognized him, the Americans tried to save his life. Kind of weird for an assassination.

But I suppose that if we are to ever find Osama Bin Laden, and we can't get troops there in time or it is too dangerous, then we should let him go rather than try to bomb him. That is the impression I get from some posts here.