al-zarqawi is killed

[Kumapix 0]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html

 

 

Ok, so great news for the US but I'm just wondering since when do we rejoice when we kill the bad guys? Normally, we capture them and imprison them, or at least we try. Nowadays, it seems that killing outright is ok. No need for a trial after all

 

the downside of this for the US is that they have to find another evil terrorist to be public enemy number 1. Who are they going to blame now for all their problems?

[Yuki's Passion 1]

Im sure it will be Chavez Kuma...the rhetoric against many S. American countries is increasing as well as Iran too. Dont worry, with Bin Laden still on the loose we have plenty of terrorist to chose from

 

Lets War!

[marnix 0]

I wonder how they got his almost unscarred face out of all the rubble. There wasn't much left standing after those 2 500pound bombs, but his face was pretty much intact.

[me jane 0]

They said on the news last night that they had found "treasure trove" of information on terrorists at the safehouse. I was wondering a similar thing Sanno, how did they manage to kill a woman, a child & two other potentially innocent people but not damage the papers/computers or whatever it was they found?

[bobby12 0]

I remember hearing they have bombs that somehow can kill humans but not damage equipment/buildings. Not gas but something to that effect.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_reports/Gallery

 

shocking. The US only reports isolated incidents yet when the truth breaks out its always a scandal.

 

Anybody ever see A Few Good Men?

 

"You want the truth you cant handle the truth."

 

Soldiers are taught to the "T" how to follow orders. When soliders dont follow orders, they get killed in battle. Think all of the isolated incidents - were soldiers acting alone and making decisions on their own? Or did the order came from the President down? Knowing that Bush is a pathological lier, Id go with the later. I cant watch him on TV without feelin sick to my stomach, besides him making a fool of himself speaking like a redneck.

 

US villifies others for War Crimes and for breaking treaties, yet they are the worlds leader at that. US wants Iran not to build nuclear weapons (as does Israel, who unarguably has a huge arsonal themselves and is itching to blow Iran off the map) yet the US didnt sign the NPT? WTF? How can anybody take the US seriously is beyond me.

 

sorry bit off topic

[Rag-Doll 0]

"how did they manage to kill a woman, a child & two other potentially innocent people but not damage the papers/computers or whatever it was they found?"

 

Might be as simple as the roof landing on their heads. Such things tend not to do a lot of damage to books and computer hard drives.

[bushpig 0]

my thoughts too RD. Human life can be extremely fragile and it really doesn't take much to snuff it out.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

Post-Haditha Math

 

 

 

The Bush administration ran its numbers quickly after the Haditha story broke big-time in the media -- and word of those numbers went around fast. In fact, in the last week, was there a major military or civilian Pentagon figure who didn't manage to use them? Here's a sampling:

 

 

 

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: "We know that 99.9 percent of our forces conduct themselves in an exemplary manner. We also know that in conflicts things that shouldn't happen, do happen."

 

 

 

Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of multinational forces in Iraq: "The allegations of Haditha are troubling to all of us... [but] out of those 150,000 soldiers, I'd dare to say that 99.9 percent of them are doing the right thing."

 

 

 

Army Brig Gen. Donald Campbell, chief of staff for Multi-National Corps-Iraq: "While the bulk of our forces, 99.9 percent, serve with honor, there are a small number of individuals who sometimes choose the wrong path."

 

 

 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Peter Pace: "Clearly the individuals involved -- if they are responsible for the things they are being accused of -- have not performed their duty the way that 99.9% of their fellow marines have."

 

 

 

Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee: "Praised the '99.9%' of Marines who follow their training not to fire on civilians."

 

 

 

MNFI (Multinational Forces) spokesman in Iraq: "Defended the record of the US-led troops in Iraq, saying that '99.9 per cent of all men and women' in the forces adhere to the highest standards and any violations will be punished."

 

My guess is those .01% were following Pres Bush orders

[kintaro 0]

He was a less than admirable dude to say the least. A guy that enjoyed the publicity of beheading those he didn't even know. Yah, I guess it is difficult to see how we aren't better off without the likes of an Al-Zarqawi. Maybe he deserved his day in court and just might have been truly a decent world citizen. I wish his victims could have decided his fate but...

[Kumapix 0]

he doesn't seem like an 'admirable dude' but then again, I just heard about him from US media, which usually just writes what Bush wants. So I don't feel that I really know if he did all those things or not. There's so much hearsay & propaganda thrown out by the us government as facts that frankly I don't believe very much of anything it says anymore. Remember that all reports about these terrorists/freedom fighters are all made by 'intelligence' types from the US (occupier)

 

note that I am not saying he's a good guy or anything, but everyone deserves their day in court. I like how the precision strike demolished the buildings next door too and killed a woman & child.

[Rag-Doll 0]

"US wants Iran not to build nuclear weapons (as does Israel"

 

...and most of the rest of the world too CB. I wouldn't call France and Russia and China US toadies and they're pretty keen to make sure Iran (which does have a leader expressly supporting wiping Israel off the map) doesn't get hold of nukes. Of course the whole Iran thing is getting distorted. Both sides are playing the propaganda game. I think for the most part though most countries are keen to avoid having a nuke capable Iran whether because of their overt hostility to Israel or because they’re leaders are about as rational as North Korea’s. It may also force Israel to go the pre-emptive route (ever heard of Osirak?)… not a good result for anyone at the moment.

 

“who unarguably has a huge arsenal themselves and is itching to blow Iran off the map” –

 

where do you get that from?

 

Iran doesn‘t need nuclear energy (I think - though I might be wrong I tend to tune about about this stuff now) they’ve knocked back offers of light water technology so it’s not really an energy issue. Iran’s leaders are a bunch of crazy religious fanatics who hate the West and are keen to take a leading role in the Islamic world. Forget the nukes, we should be keeping sharp implements from these guys.

 

The US in Iraq is bad. A lot of the Iraqi mullahs are bad. Iran with Nukes is bad.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

yeah but Rag-doll, how many centrifuges does Iran have? And how many does it take to create enriched plutonium? Do you know the answer? I do. And you wont find it in the US newspapers.

 

who unarguably has a huge arsenal themselves and is itching to blow Iran off the map” –

 

where do you get that from?

 

I suggest you read - anything other than the N.Y. times.

 

IVE NEVER SAID I WANT IRAN TO HAVE NUKES. Not once, nor do I want them to have em. But, lets be honest, the US is the only country to have used Nukes, who is building new technology nukes, i.e. bunker busters, and who, will most likely, still use "tactical nukes." Hypocrites.

 

India doesnt need Nuclear Energy, but they got it from Bush. Why R.D. Why? How long will it take India to be able to use Nucelar Energy when they need it NOW. You think the Indian govt is any better?? Really? You think the safety standards of THAT country will be enough to protect the plants from being attacked?

 

India got Nuclear energy approval from the US cuz the US doesnt want India to hog the US's oil. India is in a huge energy shortage and the countrys growing demand for energy is like China, its enormous. It will take a decade for India to see the kind of results it needs to provide energy for the country. In the meantime, they'll just have to make do then wont they?

 

The US needs a diff approach, not were gonna bomb the shite outta you if you dont do what we say. Why do you think the US is getting pissed at S. America? You wont find too many subordinate states down there... thats why.

[Kumapix 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Rag-Doll:
they’ve knocked back offers of light water technology so it’s not really an energy issue.

I think anyone would reject those offers in Iran's position. All those offers have strings attached to them. For example a while ago russia offered to process the uranium (i think) for them. Well that's great, but Russia would then be free to pressure Iran (if you don't support us with blah blah blah, then we'll raise the prices, or even cut you off). All countries want to preserve their sovereignity and not being energy-dependent on another country is a desirable status

I don't really want Iran to have nuclear weapons but then again what the other countries are trying to do to Iran is a classic case of double-standards. Iran is a signatory of that nuclear treaty and it gives the right to all the members to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran insists it's only interested in peaceful uses...so what's the problem? It seems more like the nuclear-capable countries don't want a new member in the club. For other doublestandards look at the us relationship with NKorea, India & Pakistan...

[Fattwins 0]

my question is simple if you are still making them can you really ask others not to?

Israel, US etc keep making more heck a nuke free middle east cant happen when one country already has them.

 

I dont feel anything toward Mr. Al Z. In the end he was killing inocents the same as the US is now doing to achive an agenda. I dont enjoy the cowboy we got him press though.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

Yes, theres a chance Iran might use Nukes in the future R.D. But the attitude the US takes towards countries only creates an atmosphere which makes them want to pursue it for their own protection.

 

The dialogue needs to be one of no nuclear weapons in the Middle East, especially Israel. The IAEA should be allowed into Israel to check ont their weapons and a disarmament should follow. Thats the best course of action.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

>I dont feel anything toward Mr. Al Z. In the end he was killing inocents the same as the US is now doing to achive an agenda. I dont enjoy the cowboy we got him press though.

 

my thoughts too

[Kumapix 0]

the US should actually try to develop a new energy medium and stop using oil. then they wouldn't give a rats ass about the middle east

 

 

but that won't happen with oil companies making huge profits right now, and weapon-makers selling lots of bullets

[Kumapix 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Creek Boy:
>I dont feel anything toward Mr. Al Z. In the end he was killing inocents the same as the US is now doing to achive an agenda. I dont enjoy the cowboy we got him press though.

my thoughts too

actually that was why i started the topic. I don't like the 'yeah, we killed someone!' attitude

[Yuki's Passion 1]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Kumapix:
the US should actually try to develop a new energy medium and stop using oil. then they wouldn't give a rats ass about the middle east


but that won't happen with oil companies making huge profits right now, and weapon-makers selling lots of bullets

and Bush and Cheney in power. Oil companies lobby politicians out the arse with endorsements. Its all about makin a quick buck and not worrying about the consequences. Heck, they wont be alive so who cares, right?

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

No sooner was Saddam captured than the US spokesmen began to mention Zarqawi's name in every sentence. "If the weather is bad they will blame it on Zarqawi," an Iraqi journalist once said to me. It emerged earlier this year that the US emphasis on Zarqawi as the prime leader of the Iraqi resistance was part of a carefully calculated propaganda programme. A dubious letter from Zarqawi was conveniently discovered. One internal briefing document quoted by The Washington Post records Brigadier General Kimmitt, the chief US military spokesman at the time, as saying: "The Zarqawi psy-op programme is the most successful information campaign to date." The US campaign was largely geared towards the American public and above all the American voter. It was geared to proving that the invasion of Iraq was a reasonable response to the 9/11 attacks. This meant it was necessary to show al-Qa'ida was strong in Iraq and play down the fact that this had only happened after the invasion.

I'd be embarassed to have been taken in by my government's most successful psy-op against me if I were an American who cared about constitutional government.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

Think the US cares bout the constitution, the UN charter, or anything else O11?

[Rag-Doll 0]

CB – I’m not suggesting that you support the idea of an Iran with nukes. But you were bagging the US for taking a lead in preventing Iran getting nuke as if it is wrong for them to do so. The governments of some countries can’t be trusted – some would say that the US is a good example of this and perhaps that’s true but it is at least equally valid that the Iranian government should not be trusted with the ability to make nukes. And I do appreciate that enriching uranium is only part of the bomb making process and that it is probably unreasonable to expect to deny a country technology which is now 60 years old. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort to keep Iranian and nukes separate. Countries with leaders like Iran has with no controlling mechanisms are bloody dangerous. The US would be the perfect example if there wasn't a strong tradition of political criticism (even if it is currently under pressure) and regular elections.

 

It might seem like the nuclear club wants to limit its membership but that’s not what the Iranian issue is about – lots of countries enrich uranium without problems. It’s the government and their generally whacked out attitude to the way you and I live and what we believe that is the problem.

 

Israel has been attacked and invaded several times during its existence. I think they have every right to nervous about an openly hostile neighbor armed with the ability to destroy them. On the other hand, despite its ability to do so, hasn’t tried to destroy any of its neighbors. You shouldn’t believe everything you read in Al-jazeera.

 

The problem I have with a lot of the anti-US people is that they expect the US to display a level of altruism that never seems to be expected or asked of any other country. It often seems that the US are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. No one expects or demands Russia, France or China to take the lead in international issues without some pretty significant self interest angle so why is the US any different. Of course the US is self interested and self serving – everyone is. ASEAN and Burma, Africa and Darfur, Africa and Zimbabwe, Europe and Yugoslavia, the UN and Srebrenica, China and Tibet, Turkey and Kurdistan, UN and Rwanda – the list is sadly very long.

 

I’m not a big fan of current US foreign policy and the whole Iraq thing is pretty shameful, but so is the way the Sunnis are butchering the Shias – why doesn’t the liberal anti-US establishment lambaste them? Why do the criminal actions of a handle full US soldiers get major coverage when dozens if not hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed by other Iraqis daily with only by-line coverage unless it involves westerners or a spectacularly large bomb/casualties?

 

I agree with this completely -

"The dialogue needs to be one of no nuclear weapons in the Middle East, especially Israel. The IAEA should be allowed into Israel to check ont their weapons and a disarmament should follow. Thats the best course of action"

 

Unfortunately for Israel those countries that are openly hostile to it will take advantage of this process. Not everybody plays fair, least of all dictators and theocracies.

[Ocean11 0]

> On the other hand, despite its ability to do so, hasn’t tried to destroy any of its neighbors.

 

Yes it has. Ever heard of Lebanon?

 

> Countries with leaders like Iran has with no controlling mechanisms are bloody dangerous.

 

You clearly know as little about Iran, its politics and history as you do about Israel's. Some heavy reading here would help.

 

> lots of countries enrich uranium without problems.

 

Every country that enriches uranium comes to recognize that it has to grow up suddenly.

 

> but so is the way the Sunnis are butchering the Shias – why doesn’t the liberal anti-US establishment lambaste them?

 

Because they're not a democracy, and because they're the djinn that were let out of the bottle by the US and UK (as predicted). Condemnation of the US does NOT imply approbation of murderous thugs, in spite of insinuations to the contrary.

 

> Why do the criminal actions of a handle full US soldiers get major coverage when dozens if not hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed by other Iraqis daily with only by-line coverage unless it involves westerners or a spectacularly large bomb/casualties?

 

Well, nearly every day when I open my browser to Yahoo, there at the top of the news links is headline that says "16 killed in Iraq". Those are Iraqis. That's every day. Those headlines weren't there before the government of Iraq was liquidated. Perhaps you don't see them, but they're there, and you don't have to look very hard.

 

> The problem I have with a lot of the anti-US people is that they expect the US to display a level of altruism that never seems to be expected or asked of any other country.

 

No, they either expect the US to display the level of altruism it professes to have, or they expect it to butt out and stop killing foreigners. I'd take either myself, but I'd trust them to be able to manage the latter before the former.

 

Rag-Doll, you sound a bit like you're channeling Tony Blair.

[Rag-Doll 0]

On the other hand, despite its ability to do so, hasn’t tried to destroy any of its neighbors.

 

Yes it has. Ever heard of Lebanon? DEFENSIVE ACTIONS DON’T COUNT. DO YOU HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF ISRAEL’S ATTEMPTS TO IRRADICATE ANOTHER COUNTRY? PLEASE DO REMEMBER THAT THE PALISTINIANS WERE OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A NATION IN ‘47 AND CHOSE TO MAKE WAR INSTEAD.

 

> Countries with leaders like Iran has with no controlling mechanisms are bloody dangerous.

 

You clearly know as little about Iran, its politics and history as you do about Israel's. Some heavy reading here would help. PERHAPS YOU COULD RECOMMEND SOME INTERNET SITES – READING ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY BROKEN INTO EASILY UNDERSTOOD AND DIGESTED BITS, IT WON’T TAKE ME TOO LONG TO CATCH UP TO YOU.

 

> lots of countries enrich uranium without problems.

 

Every country that enriches uranium comes to recognize that it has to grow up suddenly. AH HA! FINALLY THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE WORLDS PROBLEMS. HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PETTY DICtATOR OR A NEIGHBOURING THEOCRACY? JUST SHOW THEM HOW TO ENRICH URANIUM AND THEY’LL SETTLE DOWN – SMART OCEAN, REALLY SMART. AND IF THAT DOESN’T SETTLE THEM DOWN, WOULD YOU SUGGEST SHOWING THEM HOW TO BUILD AN ICBM?

 

> but so is the way the Sunnis are butchering the Shias – why doesn’t the liberal anti-US establishment lambaste them?

 

Because they're not a democracy, and because they're the djinn that were let out of the bottle by the US and UK (as predicted). Condemnation of the US does NOT imply approbation of murderous thugs, in spite of insinuations to the contrary. I WASN’T INSINUATING ANYTHING I WAS POINTING OUT THAT DEATH BY AMERCIAN HANDS FOR SOME REASON OFFENDS PEOPLE LIKE YOU MORE THAN DEATH BY A COUNTRYMAN. ALTHOUGH WE ALL AGREE THE US SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED IRAQ, MANY WITH AN ANTI-US VIEW WOULD HAVE THE US LEAVE IRAQ TODAY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CONSEQUENCES. LOALS KILLING LOCALS DOESN'T SEEM TO BOTHER THE WORLD ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH AS AMERICANS KILLING LOCALS – I REFER YOU TO THE SUDAN AS EVIDENCE OF THIS.

 

THE IRONY OF COURSE IS THAT IF THE SUNNIS AND THE SHIAS STOPPED KILLING EACH OTHER THE AMERICANS WOULD LEAVE. PEACE WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO GET THE FOREIGNERS OUT OF IRAQ.

 

> Why do the criminal actions of a handle full US soldiers get major coverage when dozens if not hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed by other Iraqis daily with only by-line coverage unless it involves westerners or a spectacularly large bomb/casualties?

 

Well, nearly every day when I open my browser to Yahoo, there at the top of the news links is headline that says "16 killed in Iraq". Those are Iraqis. That's every day. Those headlines weren't there before the government of Iraq was liquidated. Perhaps you don't see them, but they're there, and you don't have to look very hard. I AGREE COMPLETELY - THE REPORTS ARE THERE BUT THEY DON’T GET THE COVERAGE THAT HADITHA RECEIVED.

 

> The problem I have with a lot of the anti-US people is that they expect the US to display a level of altruism that never seems to be expected or asked of any other country.

 

No, they either expect the US to display the level of altruism it professes to have. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT AMERCIA SHOULD USE ITS MIGHT FOR GOOD (as defined by you) RATHER THAN ACTING WITH SUCH OVERT SELF INTEREST. ONE MAN’S ALTRUISM IS ANOTHER MAN’S MILITARY ADVENTURISM. HOW BAD DO THINGS HAVE TO BE BEFORE YOU WOULD SUPPORT US INTERVENTION? KEEPING IN MIND OF COURSE THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE UN SECURITY COUNSEL MEANS THAT IT WILL ONLY APPROVE INTERVENTION IN THE FACE OF THE WORSE HUMAN RIGHTS ABSUES.

 

they expect it to butt out and stop killing foreigners. – I REFER TO YOU THE COMMENT ABOVE – LOCALS KILLING LOCALS SEEMS TO BE MORE BEARABLE THAN AMERICANS KILLING LOCALS. WHY IS THAT? IF IT WASN’T SUCH A SCARY CONCEPT I’D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD SAY IF AMERICA DID WITHDRAW TO PRE-WW2 INSOLATIONISM AND THE GLOBAL POWER VACUUM WAS FILLED BY THOSE FREEDOM LOVIN’ CHINESE OR MAYBE A PAN-ARAB ALIANCE BASED ON SHARIA LAW.

 

Rag-Doll, you sound a bit like you're channeling Tony Blair. MATE I’D TAKE BLAIR OVER CHAMBERLAIN ANY DAY.