Zarqawi dead

[john5746]

Can anyone spare a though for the dead woman and children that died during this USA air strike? Only a naive person could think that the death of Zarqawi will make the situation any better in Iraq. If anything, it will get worst. The death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge. The whole war is largely unjustified and too many innocent people have died on both sides.

 

This Zarqawi doesn't have near the support that Hitler once had. Why is it so bad to kill him? Long term, this guy will be a bad memory, nothing more.

[Pangloss]

Can anyone spare a though for the dead woman and children that died during this USA air strike? Only a naive person could think that the death of Zarqawi will make the situation any better in Iraq. If anything, it will get worst. The death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge. The whole war is largely unjustified and too many innocent people have died on both sides.

 

Wow -- defeatism and apologism all wrapped up into one ugly post.

 

Want a pillow with your coffin?

[FreeThinker]

Wow -- defeatism and apologism all wrapped up into one ugly post.

 

Want a pillow with your coffin?

 

I am sure the Americans children who die as the result of the fueled hatred will need a pillow on their coffins.

[gcol]

Wow -- defeatism and apologism all wrapped up into one ugly post.

 

Want a pillow with your coffin?

 

Not at all an ugly post' date=' but as you began it, I am free to say that [i']your[/i] post was, by its tenor alone.

 

Your tone seems to echo ultra republicanism, and Freethinker's that of liberal democracy.

 

If I have to chose, I go with freethinker. At least he shows some humanitarian and progressive ideals.

 

I suggest that the number of coffins are more likely to proliferate under your philosophy than his.

 

Perhaps it even simpler....you are miffed because he had the temerity to disagree with you. Quelle horreur!

[Pangloss]

Hmm, I see, just because I have the audacity to question someone who apologizes for terrorists, blames their acts on Americans, and have the unmitigated gall to actually want to hold anyone in this world (besides Americans) accountable for their behavior... yes, that must be it -- I must be a REPUBLICAN! (Eww! Unclean!)

 

You want to go with Freethinker? Great. Have fun storming the castle. Just keep splitting everything up into "good Democrats" and "evil Republicans", and I'm sure you'll have the whole world's problems solved in no time.

 

Those of us who live in the real world are going to focus on realistic answers rather than prejudice and ideological hatred.

[Sisyphus]

Was he really apologizing for terrorists? He said bombing Islamic countries and (inadvertantly) killing civilians inspires terrorists to retaliate. Is that an inaccurate statement?

[SmallIsPower]

@small - he ment domestic targets, not the armed forces, who knew what they were getting into when they signed up to fight.

 

I doubt the mothers of the dead servicemen can be convinced that their sons are less important than someone who's still in North America.

[abskebabs]

I've been a little late to coment on this thread, but I think killing individual terrorist leaders probably has less of an impact in combating terrorism, than other perhaps more subtle methods. Terrorism for instance is much more than just the acts of violence themselves, it permeates from a deep rooted ideology. It is this and the many euphemisms that come with it that we must relentlessly fight. This will be very difficult, and represents a much greater challenge than any conventional conflict.

 

To destroy Al Quaeda, or any other organisation we have to destroy and discredit its central ideas. In fact, I would say this is exactly what organisatons like Al Quaeda are doing against America and te West. Needless to say, I think there are many things I have missed and I doubt the "war on terror" be this straightforward.

 

Considering specifically, Zaqarwi as an example; I think the US miliary dealt him a greater blow in rubbishing his image when they exposed tapes of him being so meek that he could not fire a gun without trembling. This may have provided a dent in his following. Having said that, whatever they obtained from the house he was staying at could be vaulable intelligence and help them find out more about the workings of these terrorist cells. To know your enemy is halfway along the path to defeating them.

 

America need to seriously consider their foreign policy, and the image they project to the world. Perhaps if they realised this, and looked at the wider picture, they would be more hesitant in allowing Israel to arrange its borders, autonomously like they are allowing them to. They cannot consider ppl to be fools, and expect to improve impressions of America in the middle east with approaches as minimalistic as increasing propaganda(as Donald Rumsvelt likes to believe they can).

 

Above all, my emphasis is, if this is a "war", as it has been so often labelled, it is a mental, social and ideological war, that permeates much further than the cold war ever did to this level. The world will never defeat this enemy, unless it reanalyses its values seriously, and takes action in this direction to change itself.

 

Terrorists, in the end are political oppurtunists, no matter what their individual beliefs are.

 

That is my input on this matter.

[Jim]

Can anyone spare a though for the dead woman and children that died during this USA air strike? Only a naive person could think that the death of Zarqawi will make the situation any better in Iraq. If anything, it will get worst. The death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge. The whole war is largely unjustified and too many innocent people have died on both sides.

 

 

It's hard to respond to this post because it assumes so much. It declares that the Iraq war was not justified and appears to assume that the innocent Iraqi people would be better off today under Saddam. It also appears to put no blame one Zarqawi for putting civilians in harms way. It ignores the situation of the Iraqi citizen who may appreciate that Saddam does not rule this country but has hunkered down to see which way the war will fall.

 

It also proves way too much. If "the death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge," then we should immediately cease trying to kill Osama.

[Jim]

America need to seriously consider their foreign policy, and the image they project to the world.

 

There is no reason to say that we have not "seriously considered" our foreign policy. You may disagree but at least give us the credit that we do think about this war in which we have staked our reputation and lives.

 

If the policy is correct, the image will follow. If Iraq turns into a stable democracy the benefits are incalculable.

 

Above all, my emphasis is, if this is a "war", as it has been so often labelled, it is a mental, social and ideological war, that permeates much further than the cold war ever did to this level. The world will never defeat this enemy, unless it reanalyses its values seriously, and takes action in this direction to change itself.

 

This was a war to remove Saddam. It has succeeded on this level and no we are trying to achieve aditional benefits.

 

What are the "values" to which are you referring and what actions, specifically, do we need to take to change ourselves?

[FreeThinker]

It's hard to respond to this post because it assumes so much. It declares that the Iraq war was not justified and appears to assume that the innocent Iraqi people would be better off today under Saddam. It also appears to put no blame one Zarqawi for putting civilians in harms way. It ignores the situation of the Iraqi citizen who may appreciate that Saddam does not rule this country but has hunkered down to see which way the war will fall.

 

Maybe they would be better off under Saddam. Maybe they wouldn't. It is not American right to make those decisions. Maybe the terrorists think American people would be better under a different government, so they tried to blow up the Pentagon? My point is that America went into Iraq based on a belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass distruction. They did not. However, America has stayed in Iraq and this has caused a lot of innocent deaths. You think its for the good of the Iraqi people? Tell that to the mothers who lost children as a result of the American invasion. Tell that to the mothers of dead American soldiers. The war is unjustified. The terrorists in Iraq are a tiny minority. It is not logical to bomb an entire nation to get to a few bad guys.

 

 

It also proves way too much. If "the death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge," then we should immediately cease trying to kill Osama.

 

Depends how many innocent people will be sacrificed in hunt for Osama. As a fundamentalist leader, he can be replaced. Lives lost can not.

 

Do you know what makes fundamentalists? Its not one guy brainwashing people. Its when a child loses his/hers parent as a result of American bombing and they have nothing to live for but revenge. When a father loses an only daughter. When someones house is destroyed and they have to watch their children starve to death. That's what causes fundamentalists. When you have lost everything, you are an easy person to persuade to become a suicide bomber.

 

No matter how many 'leaders' America kills, the seed of hate has already been planted in Iraq.

[Pangloss]

Maybe they would be better off under Saddam. Maybe they wouldn't. It is not American right to make those decisions. Maybe the terrorists think American people would be better under a different government, so they tried to blow up the Pentagon? My point is that America went into Iraq based on a belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass distruction. They did not.

 

I agree with this position. I was opposed to going to war, I cringed the moment WMDs came up because the flaw in that reasoning was so obvious, and I voted for Kerry in 2004.

 

That having been said....

 

 

However, America has stayed in Iraq and this has caused a lot of innocent deaths. You think its for the good of the Iraqi people? Tell that to the mothers who lost children as a result of the American invasion. Tell that to the mothers of dead American soldiers. The war is unjustified. The terrorists in Iraq are a tiny minority. It is not logical to bomb an entire nation to get to a few bad guys.

 

I disagree with this, as do most Iraqis. They want us gone, yes, but they don't regret the war or the departure of Saddam. Every poll reflects this -- you're simply wrong.

 

You're also overstating and oversimplifying. We're not "bombing an entire nation to get to a few bad guys". We're pacifying an insurgency. At some point when the country is stable, we'll leave.

 

What you don't like about it isn't the action, but who's committing it. You're so determined to make the United States (and specifically Republicans/Bush) wrong that anything that happens MUST be spun in a negative manner.

 

 

No matter how many 'leaders' America kills, the seed of hate has already been planted in Iraq.

 

Do you think that that would not be the case if WMDs had been found?

 

Do you think that that would not be the case if Iraq/Hussein had been behind 9/11 and we'd have 100% support for invasion?

 

Do you think that that would not be the case if we simply hadn't invaded at all?

 

 

Congratulations: You are epitomizing everything that's wrong with the far left in this debate.

[abskebabs]

There is no reason to say that we have not "seriously considered" our foreign policy. You may disagree but at least give us the credit that we do think about this war in which we have staked our reputation and lives.

 

If the policy is correct' date=' the image will follow. If Iraq turns into a stable democracy the benefits are incalculable.

 

 

 

This was a war to remove Saddam. It has succeeded on this level and no we are trying to achieve aditional benefits.

 

What are the "values" to which are you referring and what actions, specifically, do we need to take to change ourselves?[/quote']

By values, America needs to set a good example and actually practice what it preaches to the rest of the world in terms of democracy and justice. One obvious step would be to close down Guantanamo, and allow most of the prisoners off without charges(as they have not committed crimes). If they are that desperately think that some pose a security, then they should allow for surveilance to be kept on their activities. This would provide a good signal to the rest of the world, who could then see that America does hold to its principles.

 

By foreign policy, it just seems to me that US foreign policy seems to be dictated a lot by Jewish political lobbies in the US(I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this). If America stops allowing this to happen, and pursues a more balanced and independent approach to the middle east, then perhaps the 50 year long problems can be resolved one day.

 

As for Iraq, it is a difficult situation and itis hard to see a possible solution at the end of the tunnel there. Ethnic strife and violence has already reached the levels it reached in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The situation is volatile. The solution to iraq's problems now, rests pretty much in the hands of the Iraqi government. The US's role is to pretty much watch from the sidelines and provide backup support and intelligence. Perhaps the US could put pressure on the Iraqi government to speedily get ppl in the critical posts of defence and interior ministries, so that implementation of policy can begin. The Iraqi government also has to have the will to disband its own Shia militias, or I think there can be no real hope for national unity.

 

The task at hand in Iraq, I must confess is heculean to say the least, and I'm not sure if the US wil succeed. Partition of the country or even genocide seems quite plausible right now.

[Jim]

Maybe they would be better off under Saddam. Maybe they wouldn't. It is not American right to make those decisions. Maybe the terrorists think American people would be better under a different government, so they tried to blow up the Pentagon?

 

Come on. We're not talking about the difference between our form of government and a parliamentary system. You know that most Iraqi's were not "deciding" to stay under Saddam. He was a despot but, if they want despotism, they will be able to have their say soon enough.

 

You bemoan any civilians caught in a crossfire but have no sympathy for those killed intentionally by a tyrant. I mourn innocent life lost but objectively Iraqis are better off today than they were before the invasion. They have a chance for freedom.

 

We were right to think that most Iraqi's would rather govern themselves. If terrorists think that most American people would prefer to live under a religious dictatorship, they are wrong.

 

My point is that America went into Iraq based on a belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass distruction. They did not.

 

Wrong. Saddam had the burden of proving that he disarmed. We extracted this concession as a price for leaving him in power after Gulf War I. Saddam invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose the destruction of his WMDs and then violated that aggreeement even as US forces were building up to attack. It would have been an easy matter to prove what happened to the WMDs but, for what seems to be irrational reasons, he did not. This is not too surprising in that he irrationally attacked Kuwait in the first place and also tried to assassinate a former US president.

 

Saddam had to go but as a side benefit his atrocities have ceased and Iraq has a chance at freedom. It takes just a bit of imagination to realize that the reality as it exists today is much better for Iraqis.

 

However, America has stayed in Iraq and this has caused a lot of innocent deaths. You think its for the good of the Iraqi people? Tell that to the mothers who lost children as a result of the American invasion. Tell that to the mothers of dead American soldiers. The war is unjustified. The terrorists in Iraq are a tiny minority. It is not logical to bomb an entire nation to get to a few bad guys.

 

I would tell them what I just told you. We are there because of the entire history of Saddam as it played out from 1991 forward.

 

Depends how many innocent people will be sacrificed in hunt for Osama. As a fundamentalist leader, he can be replaced. Lives lost can not.

 

You said the "death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge." Why does it depend on how many innocent people are "sacrificed?" Sounds like you would oppose killing Osama regardless of the number of collateral deaths.

 

Do you know what makes fundamentalists? Its not one guy brainwashing people. Its when a child loses his/hers parent as a result of American bombing and they have nothing to live for but revenge. When a father loses an only daughter. When someones house is destroyed and they have to watch their children starve to death. That's what causes fundamentalists. When you have lost everything, you are an easy person to persuade to become a suicide bomber.

 

If you are serious about looking for the causes of terrorism, I cannot recommend reading Bernard Lewis enough. tHE Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing acknowleges that Lewis has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East."

 

No matter how many 'leaders' America kills, the seed of hate has already been planted in Iraq.

 

So, we should cut and run regardless of the consequences? We should abandon the courageous Iraqis who have come forward to join the police forces and man the government?

[Jim]

By values, America needs to set a good example and actually practice what it preaches to the rest of the world in terms of democracy and justice. One obvious step would be to close down Guantanamo, and allow most of the prisoners off without charges(as they have not committed crimes). If they are that desperately think that some pose a security, then they should allow for surveilance to be kept on their activities. This would provide a good signal to the rest of the world, who could then see that America does hold to its principles.

 

I'm not sure what I think about Guantanamo. The administration position is that this is a war and that they are going to treat enemy combatants very much as they have been in previous wars. If there are abuses, they should be curbed.

 

My sense is that internationally there is some seizing on this issue to make a general point and discredit US policy. We should ignore such posturing and figure out the rules for this new kind of war. What do you think we should do with enemy combatants?

 

By foreign policy, it just seems to me that US foreign policy seems to be dictated a lot by Jewish political lobbies in the US(I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this). If America stops allowing this to happen, and pursues a more balanced and independent approach to the middle east, then perhaps the 50 year long problems can be resolved one day.

 

 

I really do not know how to respond to this. I don't know what, specifically, you mean when you say we need to "stop allowing this to happen." I know my own position is not crated by the Jewish lobby. Maybe we just disagree with the policy your country would adopt?

 

As for Iraq, it is a difficult situation and itis hard to see a possible solution at the end of the tunnel there. Ethnic strife and violence has already reached the levels it reached in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The situation is volatile. The solution to iraq's problems now, rests pretty much in the hands of the Iraqi government. The US's role is to pretty much watch from the sidelines and provide backup support and intelligence. Perhaps the US could put pressure on the Iraqi government to speedily get ppl in the critical posts of defence and interior ministries, so that implementation of policy can begin. The Iraqi government also has to have the will to disband its own Shia militias, or I think there can be no real hope for national unity.

 

We agree completely. It is up to the Iraqis to decide whether they will take advantage of this wonderful opportunity granted by coalition forces lives.

 

The task at hand in Iraq, I must confess is heculean to say the least, and I'm not sure if the US wil succeed. Partition of the country or even genocide seems quite plausible right now.

 

The horse has been led to the water. We'll see.....

 

If Iraq fails, Bush will be judged harshly by history. I wonder what will happen to those who opposed this policy if Iraq ends up being a stablizing force for freedom in this region.

[Skye]

It'll be interesting to see what happens to al Qaeda in Iraq now. Zarqawi was an extremist within the jihad movement, he was as much anti-Shia as anything, and I think most realised that the beheadings were a strategic blunder. This could see Osama gain more influence over the way the insurgency is carried out in Iraq, perhaps with a lessening of the sectarian violence, as Osama or Zawahiri (I forget) criticised Zarqawi for killing muslims.

[entwined]

I think what is most important about Zakawi's death is the fact that our side was able to nail him because of tips we got from iraqis and some of Zak's own people.

 

To me, this spells the beginning of the end for AQ in Iraq.

[Jim]

Here's a Buffalo News link with reactions from Iraqi bloggers. My favorites:

 

"I know that attacks will increase. I know more people are going to die. I know mistakes are going to be continued. I know everything will not be fixed soon like in the fairy tales. But I am happy that this man is killed. I believe his death is the real first step: the thousand-miles road starts with one step."

 

"Zarqawi is dead, Iraqi women are [howling] in the shy, face-covering manner of my country, and Iraqi men are boisterously firing celebratory shots in the air," he wrote. "Iraq improved today, though true peace is obviously still far off. There are already reports of more deaths at the hands of terrorists who are now killing only for the sake of murder. Zarqawi's death is another setback for a campaign that is only about death."

 

This is cool. Here aer the blogs from Iraq and one of them is for expatriate scientists if any of you non-laymen want to find some Iraqi pen pals.

[Jim]

Zarqawi's replacement:

 

Muhajir is "a good brother, has a history in jihad [holy war] and is knowledgeable", the message said.

 

"We ask God that he... continue what Sheikh Abu Musab began," it added.

 

Muhajir was not among the names al-Qaeda analysts had expected as a probable successor, and is believed to be a pseudonym

 

Is it just me or does that read like a resume:

 

Knowledgeable, organized, detail oriented, experienced in holy war, gets along well with other terrorists....

 

It is moderately interesting if they may have used a pseudonym. Could that mean a power struggle or that no one volunteered to have the bulls eye attached to their name?

[Pangloss]

New stats were released today revealing that 60 raids and 210 arrests have resulted directly from the attack and raid that lead to the death of Zarqawi.

 

Only a naive person could think that the death of Zarqawi will make the situation any[/b'] better in Iraq.

 

Drop in the bucket, perhaps, but I'll bet the victims of those 210 terrorists think differently.

[SmallIsPower]

Edit: Here's a collection of National Review comments on the issue. My personal hero, Victor Hanson, writes:

 

 

Quote:

Zarqawi’s death is very important at this juncture, for symbolic in addition to operational reasons. Although al Qaeda in Iraq was decentralized, the loss of its prime strategist there will insidiously have long-term repercussions. And in the short-term it adds to the sense of momentum following Prime Minister Maliki’s selection of the remaining key three cabinet posts, in addition to tranquilizing, if only for a few days, the media’s obsession with Haditha. The Americans were wise to lower expectations, give center stage credit to the Iraqis, and note that Saddam’s capture likewise did not end the insurgency. Yet in a region where honor and sway are everything, the demise of this mass murderer only adds to the prestige of the new government at a time when it was desperately needed.

 

 

National Review misstated who Zarqawi is. Al Queda's prime strategist is named Zahiri. Take a look at his picture. Zahiri assasinated Sadat. Zarqawi doesn't have a grey hair.

[Jim]

Edit: Here's a collection of National Review comments on the issue. My personal hero' date=' Victor Hanson, writes:

 

 

Quote:

Zarqawi’s death is very important at this juncture, for symbolic in addition to operational reasons. Although al Qaeda in Iraq was decentralized, the loss of its prime strategist there will insidiously have long-term repercussions. And in the short-term it adds to the sense of momentum following Prime Minister Maliki’s selection of the remaining key three cabinet posts, in addition to tranquilizing, if only for a few days, the media’s obsession with Haditha. The Americans were wise to lower expectations, give center stage credit to the Iraqis, and note that Saddam’s capture likewise did not end the insurgency. Yet in a region where honor and sway are everything, the demise of this mass murderer only adds to the prestige of the new government at a time when it was desperately needed.

 

 

National Review misstated who Zarqawi is. Al Queda's prime strategist is named Zahiri. Take a look at his picture. Zahiri assasinated Sadat. Zarqawi doesn't have a grey hair.[/quote']

 

Actually, not. This was a collection of articles in which Hanson was only one contributor, not a NRO editorial. A contributing editor of the NRO argued last year that Zarqawi had become al Queda's worst enemy.

 

In any event, I wouldn't get too excited about a label like "prime strategist" although Zarqawi's replacement is being called the "leader of al Qa'eda in Iraq."

 

I'll admit that Hanson is something of a contradiction. He is rigorously academic in his historical work but something of an advocate on current events. I do take comfort that both he and Bernard Lewis have been cautiously optimistic about the war.

[Jim]

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/06/15/ap2817856.html

 

Since Zarqawi was killed:

 

1. 104 insurgents killed;

2. 452 raids, 143 of which were carried out by Iraqi forces alone; and,

3. 28 significant arms caches located.

 

To give the journalists something to counteract this good news, the terrorist pulled 10 people from a bus and shot them. And, of course, the AP story trumpets the passing of the 2,500 Americans killed threshold as if it is a "milestone" more than was 2,000 or would be 2,750.

 

Even as the Iraqi government released a document found in al-Zarqawi's hideout that appeared to show the insurgency was weakening, new violence erupted. Gunmen shot and killed 10 Shiites in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

 

Authorities said a document found in al-Zarqawi's hideout that includes a blueprint for trying to foment a war between the United States and Iran and also appears to show that the insurgency in Iraq is weakening.

 

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

 

"Generally speaking and despite the gloomy present situation, we find that the best solution in order to get out of this crisis is to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups," the document said.

 

If this document is valid, it points to a "crisis" even before these raids. True, terrorists can still pull unarmed civilians from a bus and shoot them in cold blood but, even with the media's complicity in elevating such brutal actions to major international news, how long will this method present a sustainable policy?

 

The thing that heartens me most is Bush's restraint.