Why would a person, either male or female, bring a child into an environment where Zarqawi was present?
I think this is the relevant question. It was no secret that he was targetted for removal.
There is the true lack of compassion for a childs safety.
This will be the acid test of the neoconservatives’ “a few bad apples” model of the nature of Islamic extremism.
Specifically that a few evil Islamists like al Zarqawi, bin Laden and others have deceived and manipulating the susceptible masses of Muslims into adopting their irrational hatred of Western values and ideals and if these bad apples can only be eliminated hostility toward the U.S. and Israel will wither away because it has no other basis.
The (rejected) alternative of course is that al Zarqawi, bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were only feeding off a broad-based sense of grievance among Muslims towards the West based on mistreatment, interference and domination rather than causing it and eliminating any one of them really means very little in the face of such a broad-based movement.
One would have to guess based on the muted reaction of neoconservatives this time as compared to their jubiliation when Saddam Hussein was caught or when other high-profile Muslim terrorists have been eliminated that they’re finally starting to catch on that maybe their conceptual model needs some calibration.
The reason, of course, why neoconservatives are so wedded to the “a few bad apples” interpretation of their counterparts in the Muslim world is because that’s the model they themselves are based on. A relatively small number of neoconservative true-believers sprinkled throughout the Bush administration, at the Pentagon, at the U.N. and in the media were able to deceive and manipulate the American public into following them on their march towards the millenarist precipice in the Middle East they themselves expect to leap off of into the waiting arms of their own version of “40 heavenly virgins.”
spook -
uhh…well…that may be your interpretation…but…uh…what are you saying…exactly?
…neocons…40 virgins…millenarist precipice…?
Have you actually read any of the background info on Zarqawi that has been presented on this thread?
All have made it abundantly clear that no one is expecting this to make Iraq “magically” turn into a land of gummy bears and rainbows.
One element, and a very heavy player, in the anarchy of the middle east and also Europe has just been removed from the equation.
Sounds like this is giving you a case of remorse.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]spook -
uhh…well…that may be your interpretation…but…uh…what are you saying…exactly?
…neocons…40 virgins…millenarist precipice…?
Have you actually read any of the background info on Zarqawi that has been presented on this thread?
All have made it abundantly clear that no one is expecting this to make Iraq “magically” turn into a land of gummy bears and rainbows.
One element, and a very heavy player, in the anarchy of the middle east and also Europe has just been removed from the equation.
Sounds like this is giving you a case of remorse.[/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, the sooner al Qaeda and the Project for a New American Century disappear from the face of the earth the better.
[quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]spook -
uhh…well…that may be your interpretation…but…uh…what are you saying…exactly?
…neocons…40 virgins…millenarist precipice…?
Have you actually read any of the background info on Zarqawi that has been presented on this thread?
All have made it abundantly clear that no one is expecting this to make Iraq “magically” turn into a land of gummy bears and rainbows.
One element, and a very heavy player, in the anarchy of the middle east and also Europe has just been removed from the equation.
Sounds like this is giving you a case of remorse.[/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, the sooner al Qaeda and the Project for a New American Century disappear from the face of the earth the better.[/quote]
That makes sense to me.
jd: It is from spok, how could it make sense? The two are not moral equivalents in any sense of the word. One advocates all sorts of terrorist violence and the other wants to spread democracy and rule of law. Both in fact are extremist groups and both in fact are radical groups but look at the stated aims of both. Does the New American Century want to take freedoms away from people? No, it wants to spread them and for the first time in decades get rid of a complacent American foreign policy that is satisfied with the status quo. We have seen how well that works right? So clearly, al Qaeda and others long ago declared war on that status quo, the major victory being the takeover of Iran. Until Iran is “freed” there will be no end to this war. Spook would like to pretend that this is somehow a Jewish-led conspiracy to protect Israel, but subtract Israel from the equation entirely and what do you do with Iran? Iraq under Saddam? The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The madrassas in Saudi Arabia? the thugocracy in Palestine? the dictators of Syria, the heavy boot in Lebanon? Was this really all perpetrated because of the anguish about the Zionist occupation of Israel? Would then, Christendom be allowed to demand similar territorial control over the Holy Land? northern Cyprus? Istanbul? holy sites thoughout the Middle East?
Finally, this is about universal rights. Do you believe that all people are entitled to democratic governance with rule of law and protection of all rights including women, children, gays, minorities, etc? If you do, then how can you tolerate what goes on in the Middle East? Or do you believe that some groups are simply incapable of ruling themselves in an enlightened fashion? I may be misreading your statement (as it is quite short) but I strongly encourage you to distance yourself from agreeing with any of Spook’s paranoid ramblings about the “true” reasons why any of us are actively seeking change in the Middle East.
. . through terror and violence, sorry, I mean shock and awe.
A silly cheap shot.
Hitchens sums up Zaqarwi’s demise rather nicely. A Good Day’s Work
Why Zarqawi’s death matters. By Christopher Hitchens
HG
Well, it is a ideal, Fred. I too would like to see the AQ network and the people who would support it educated to peacefully express their POV.
I would also like the perception of “The American Century” to be gone as well. Too much time in the spotlight. All the bugs are out.
“You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
– Matthew 7:16-20
Wow, that’s spooky (damn, I didn’t mean that pun, either!), but I just noticed Fred and Spook joined on the same day one year apart . . . and that happens to be my birthday. And their arguments very much echo the dialogue I have in my own mind about this war on terror.
Fade out with the Twilight Zone music.
HG
Remember Mission Accomplished and how it turned out to be anything but. Remember how the capture of Saddam Hussein did nothing to decrease the deaths and terror. Well. . .
[quote]We didn’t kill Al Qaeda
Zarqawi’s death will have little effect on Iraq’s insurgents, says a U.S. security chief who served there.
By David W. Brannan, DAVID W. BRANNAN teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey, Calif. He was director of security policy in the Coalition Provisional Authority from 2003 to 2004.
. . . Catching Hussein turned out to be not nearly as important as we believed. . . Now a similar euphoria greets the news that the Jordanian-born Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike Wednesday. The announcement, this time made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, has elicited much of the same kind of elation that the capture of Hussein did. But I fear that it too will have little or no effect on the insurgencies. . .
Zarqawi was both a leader of and a problem for Al Qaeda in Iraq. . . the Al Qaeda leadership felt his brutality against fellow Muslims was counterproductive to their greater goal of defeating the West. . .
what will the death of Zarqawi mean to the hopes for peace in Iraq? Probably very little. An Al Qaeda website has already declared him a martyr. New leadership has likely stepped into place and is probably planning the next attacks on Iraqi Shiites and coalition forces. Zarqawi was credited with recruiting fighters from Jordan, the Palestinian territories and other lands previously unconcerned with Iraq, but his “glorious” martyrdom at American hands will probably prove a potent recruitment tool for the fighters he trained.
The overarching problem is that death and martyrdom are all that any Al Qaeda leader expects, so Zarqawi may be as effective in death at inspiring terrorist acts as he was in life.
In fact, his death could motivate the insurgency in the same way that the 1995 assassination of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Fathi Shiqaqi proved a recruitment tool for Palestinians.
The death of Zarqawi will not make it less dangerous for soldiers, journalists and others working in Iraq. Kidnappings will probably continue. The day-to-day danger from roadside bombs and suicide attackers will not be significantly decreased.
The foreign fighters in Iraq are not likely to go home because their leader has been slain. His death could actually make it easier for them to form partnerships with the Sunni insurgent groups who disliked Zarqawi’s tactics. . .[/quote]
latimes.com/news/opinion/com … t-opinions
Remember how we were being berated for not capturing Saddam? Saddam still on the loose the newspapers crowed? But when are we going to capture Saddam they said? Remember how we were bogged down and the mission was in trouble? Remember how we were not going to reach Baghdad because of the sandstorm? Remember how we were not able to capture or kill Zarkawi? Remember? Well…
Remember how we were being berated for not capturing Saddam? Saddam still on the loose the newspapers crowed? But when are we going to capture Saddam they said? Remember how we were bogged down and the mission was in trouble? Remember how we were not going to reach Baghdad because of the sandstorm? Remember how we were not able to capture or kill Zarkawi? Remember? Well…[/quote]
You’re hallucinating Fred. It’s guys like you who have fixated on catching this small handful of men, imagining that it will make the world safe from terror. Those of us who have opposed the war have said all along it’s a stupid plan that will never work – killing a few bad guys won’t lead to peace and stability or cause the world to love America. Moreover, don’t boast too much about this one. Apparently, Zarqawi was disliked by many within Al Quaeda and his own buddies ratted him out cuz they wanted him dead.
[quote]What the Americans had always lacked was someone inside al-Zarqawi’s network, al-Qaida in Iraq, who would betray him.
According to a Pentagon official, the Americans finally got one. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside al-Qaida in Iraq provided the critical piece of intelligence about al-Rahman’s meeting with al-Zarqawi. The source’s identity wasn’t clear — nor was it clear how that source was able to pinpoint al-Zarqawi’s location without getting killed himself.
“We have a guy on the inside who led us directly to Zarqawi,” the official said.
In a news release Thursday morning, U.S. military commanders hinted that a member of al-Zarqawi’s inner circle had pointed the way.
“Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi,” the news release said.[/quote]
“We”?
Hasn’t it?
Well, those few will no longer be killing anyone right? So what is your plan if it does not involve fighting?
Regardless of the reasons, it has proved eminently satisfying to me. Anyway, the Iraqis have voted three times and they have elected a government and they have filled all those Cabinet posts. So, how any elections would they have had prior to removing Saddam?
Again, the vast majority of Iraqis (nearly 90 percent) are glad Saddam is gone. Most do not want US forces but recognize that they will have to stay until stability is restored. Now, if the ELECTED government of Iraq wants us there and the ELECTED government of Afghanistan wants us there, where really is your moral imprimature to oppose?
Second, from a moral point of view, were we to look at this as a criminal matter as many of you lefties seem to wish to prefer, then is it not in the interests of law and justice to capture and kill such people? Or do you also think that we should disband our police forces in order to avoid offending anyone’s sensiblities? More welfare? education? understanding for criminals who rape and kill and steal as well? What exactly do you want? Do you know? Have you ever really thought this over?
I am biting today. I really want to know.
So when is this so-called “tree of liberty” in Iraq going to bear anything but death, destruction, hatred, brutality, social disintegration and extremism? Starting “next year”?
There you go again spook, always the absence of perfection means the total lack of progress, improvement…
What was there in Iraq before? and do the Iraqi people prefer what was there before or are they happy the old system was overturned despite the instability now? Do they have hope that things will be better and why?
[quote=“fred smith”]There you go again spook, always the absence of perfection means the total lack of progress, improvement…
What was there in Iraq before? and do the Iraqi people prefer what was there before or are they happy the old system was overturned despite the instability now? Do they have hope that things will be better and why?
Well, those few will no longer be killing anyone right? [/quote]
Say … you figure in the costs for this at any time? Or is that heart-bleeding altruism an end in its own to you? What’s next on the agenda? After paying a pretty penny & some G.I.s so Iraqis can “feel better” (esp. about “freedom of religion” it seems) are there also multi-culti sensitivity trainings on the roadmap to victory so Iraqi Muslims get even happier?
Wasn’t there something about a strategic payoff you once alluded to?
$250 billion over three years.
The democracy is an important plank but not the most important one. The removal of Saddam was the key and that was accomplished. We could have just left after that, but we will stay and we will build something better.
Ummm. Libya has given up its wmds, Algerian civil war is quiet, Egypt is having elections, women are allowed to vote in Kuwait, women in Saudi Arabia to participate in city council elections, drastically reduced flow of money to terrorist forces from sources in the region, Syrians out of Lebanon, election in Palestine, talk of referendum in Palestine to recognize Israel, end of the Intifada in West Bank, 3/4ths of terrorists on original list, dead, captured, Taliban out of Afghanistan, Pakistan closes nuclear black market, Pakistan talks to India, Germany, France!!! and UK lead efforts to shut down Iranian nuclear program, Iraq no longer a threat to its neighbors…
I don’t know, but I am sure all of this is just a coincidence. I mean there is so much more progress to point to in the Middle East right? I mean if we look at the end of imperialism following WWII until Bush? Right?
I am very very VERY pleased. I am also a bit worried that the US is doing too much to “negotiate” with Iran. As long as I know that in the end it is just an attempt to get everyone on board for the final confrontation, then I am okay with it. I think we should be doing more to destabilize Syria as well. I mean it cannot get worse than what is there presently given the funding and support both regimes provide to terrorism. A lot has been accomplished but more remains. Iran will be the key for me, but Syria would be a nice add-on.
Mopping up Syria and Iran before having to face the real challenge on day: Pakistan in free fall…
I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, look to the polls. If the Iraqis support the removal of Saddam and the elected government and that elected government asks us to stay then what really is your beef about? Now, that Iraq has a duly elected government which is what France and Germany and Russia and China and the UN claimed to be most concerned about… where then in their commitment to helping? Where are their troops? Where are their police forces? Where is their funding? So as usual, most of this is going to be a lot of hot air. Everyone agrees that someone should do something about Darfur but where are the troops? who’s going to fund it? Who’s going to fight there? the US is quite busy with a number of other theaters so where are the Russians? French? Italians? Dutch? Germans? Greeks? Chinese? etc.? Can a nation which is tapped out when 3,000 of its troops are in Iraq really be said to be serious about contributing to stabilizing such failing states? What about Somalia? Canada want to take the lead there? I will not hold my breath.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Moreover, don’t boast too much about this one. Apparently, Zarqawi was disliked by many within Al Quaeda and his own buddies ratted him out cuz they wanted him dead.
[quote]What the Americans had always lacked was someone inside al-Zarqawi’s network, al-Qaida in Iraq, who would betray him.
According to a Pentagon official, the Americans finally got one. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside al-Qaida in Iraq provided the critical piece of intelligence about al-Rahman’s meeting with al-Zarqawi. The source’s identity wasn’t clear — nor was it clear how that source was able to pinpoint al-Zarqawi’s location without getting killed himself.
“We have a guy on the inside who led us directly to Zarqawi,” the official said.
In a news release Thursday morning, U.S. military commanders hinted that a member of al-Zarqawi’s inner circle had pointed the way.
“Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi,” the news release said.[/quote][/quote]
So now, when its deemed convienent you chose to believe press releases from the military…Hmmm.
Seems to me, if I wanted to sow even more seeds of discontent within the ranks of AQ that might be a pretty slick message to float…traitor in their midst…who to trust? Yep…pretty easy way to split their ranks.
If one cares to read back over some of my previous posted material, you’ll notice that it was mentioned that Zarqawi was tracked down due to surveillence of his “spiritual” leaqder - Rachman. He was followed to a rendevous where it turned out Z was stashed. Targets were ID’d and the air strike was called in.
Of course a later news release has it that a telephone call to his brother-in-law in Jordan was intercepted and this led to Z being toasted.
So who is to be believed?