Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: DEAD (sensational foxnews wallpaper inside)

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You know, I may get shit for this, but I can't believe you people are celebrating someone's death.

Yea okay so he was a real BADASS MOTHERFUCKER who was extrenously cruel to even his own people, carrying out beheadings himself and all. But I just can't imagine celebrating death. Maybe I'm insane.

Pay blood with blood.

There is always what we called preventative diplomacy. It's necessary to kill a man before he killed million others! I'm sure many people want to kill some of fucktard genociders in this world before they started they shithole mass murdering. Yes, I'm celebrating his death.

Originally Posted by Lizzardcommando

Thank god this sick freak is gone. All we need to do is kill or capture Osama.

They better capture him alive. I'm curious the truth about his relationship with Bush. White house could hide certain disputable facts by killing him without giving him chance to speak.

Originally Posted by Rock

So because terrorists use terrorist methods, we can use them as well?

Why didn't they bomb the shit out of Saddam? Would've saved them the farce that is his trial.

I think people are regretting not having killed Saddam on the spot.

After this crazy trial and everything they are probably wishing they put him out of his misery then and there.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yeah, so why didn't we bomb the shit out of Milosevic, or Goering?

Probably because Milosevic was extradited and Goering surrendered himself to US military.

Originally Posted by gukarma

But then I thought about the two people this guy BEHEADED with his own hands

His own hands? Like a judo-chop?:ninja:

Seriously though, I don't see why the notion that arresting and taking him to trial is so ridiculous all of a sudden? Isn't that like, the way that people used to want to deal with such matters? One's gut says to kill, but one's mind used to at least *try* to over-ride that.

Also, you don't see the line about 'killing millions!' as being just a wee bit exagerated?

Or is the popular mentality of the day really "Kill 'em. Trials are for pussies. He would have wrought untold horrors if they captured him.. somehow." ?

Originally Posted by Rock

Probably because Milosevic was extradited and Goering surrendered himself to US military.

Cute. I hope the concept of meaningless trials for war criminals hasn't passed over your head.

This couldn't come at a better time for Bush, because a lot of the country is pretty much sick of him. Maybe his approval rating will go up about 2% for this, lol.



And about the death...well I guess it's cool that the prime guy behind Bin Laden is out, but like someone said: Terrorism is a Hydra.

Quote:

Terrorism is a Hydra.

To a certain point. If you recall, Israel killed the leader of Hamas. His successor was killed and another successor nominated. This sucessor was also killed. When no one wants the leader of Hamas position anymore then some success has been experienced.

When you have numerical, tactical and technological advantages you will win - it just comes down to your resolve and how much you are willing to bleed to accomplish your goals.

Originally Posted by Rock

Here is the amazing Fox News wallpaper in wallpaper size for everyone's convenience:

Best post in the entire history of the Political Palace.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

His own hands? Like a judo-chop?:ninja:

Seriously though, I don't see why the notion that arresting and taking him to trial is so ridiculous all of a sudden? Isn't that like, the way that people used to want to deal with such matters? One's gut says to kill, but one's mind used to at least *try* to over-ride that.

Also, you don't see the line about 'killing millions!' as being just a wee bit exagerated?

Or is the popular mentality of the day really "Kill 'em. Trials are for pussies. He would have wrought untold horrors if they captured him.. somehow." ?

Dude. Do you know what has happened with the Saddam trial?

Also, you understand this guy was guarded by suicide-belt terrorists, right?

Also, I said thousands, not millions, by which counts we could count more than a thousand Americans ALONE who were killed by or as a result of insurgency, which was by and large led by this dude.

I find it funny that you haven't heard about how Zarqawi beheaded Nicholas Berg, an American civilian.

This guy was pretty mobile. It takes time to mount a ground action to take out the house and possible capture him. Chances are good he would have moved before troops could have gotten to him. The airstrike was a quick decisive way to deal with the problem.

Originally Posted by gukarma

Also, you understand this guy was guarded by suicide-belt terrorists, right?

Also, I said thousands, not millions, by which counts we could count more than a thousand Americans ALONE who were killed by or as a result of insurgency, which was by and large led by this dude.

I find it funny that you haven't heard about how Zarqawi beheaded Nicholas Berg, an American civilian.

You realise Bush is surrounded by Secret Service men who will die before they let anyone kill him, right? omg, TERRORISTS!

We could count a thousand Americans ALONE who were killed by or as a result of the UNNECESSARY WAR IN IRAQ, which was by and large led by the American Government.

I find it funny that you haven't heard about how Nich Berg's parents don't think this was the best way to deal with matters.

How is he worse than Bush, exactly? Is killing someone with your own hands somehow worse than killing thousands of someones with other people's hands? Yeah, Zarqawi killed a lot of innocent people. So did your military. Yeah, Zarqawi presided over thousands of deahts. So did your president. He killed Americans because you invaded his country. When you help perpetuate a cycle of violence, you don't get to complain when your own people die. If the opposite had happened, if Bush had been assassinated and the Muslim world was celebrating, you'd all be on about how disgusting they are for rejoicing over the end of a life. Zarqawi may have been a religious extremist, but he was also the leader of the closest thing Iraq had to a military. You may not like it, but not everyone who worked for him was a terrorist; some of them wanted the occupying force to get the fuck out of their country. That's why I hate the word "terrorist" when it's used on people in a place like Iraq. He's no more a terrorist than you are. There's no difference between Zarqawi and the guy who dropped a bomb on his house this morning. They're both fighting for misguided ideals. Just because Zarqawi wasn't sanctioned by the US Puppet Governement doesn't mean he's better or worse than a Marine.

It amazes me how people don't realise that this is a TWO WAY STREET.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to not defame the Iraqi insurgency in the ignorant manner you just did by lumping all of it with Zarqawi and his outfit as if they were one single force, and then acting as if Zarqawi was calling all the shots.

I didn't.

I never came out and said that all the so-called insurgents were one single force. I just happen to believe that Zarqawi's group is one of the largest and better equipped/trained, thus representing more of a military than a militia. I also believe that those fighting against the Americans for reasons of sovereignty as opposed to religion would find it most expedient to ally themselves with the strongest internal resistance movement, which appears to have been Zarqawi's group. Don't blame me for making Zarqawi the figurehead (and thus making him appear to be the defacto leader/instigator of all the anti-us "insurgents" in Iraq). Again, your government did that.

Now, let's all say what a good job the Republicans are doing. Don't you have some kind of vote coming up soon...?

Originally Posted by gukarma

Dude. Do you know what has happened with the Saddam trial?

Also, you understand this guy was guarded by suicide-belt terrorists, right?

Also, I said thousands, not millions, by which counts we could count more than a thousand Americans ALONE who were killed by or as a result of insurgency, which was by and large led by this dude.

I find it funny that you haven't heard about how Zarqawi beheaded Nicholas Berg, an American civilian.

And the OJ trial turned into a farce as well, therefore no more trials for suspected murderers either.

It used to be fashionable to hold trials and to try to have some semblance of order and fairness in such matters. It's the loss of that aspect which I have a problem with. There is a good reason why judicial systems use courts and trials.

I have heard of the beheading. I chose not to let it blind me in such a way that I no longer would like a court like system employed in order to prosecute such people.

"He was bad. So we shouldn't bother with shit like, legal representation." Fuck yeah.

For those playing the Nich Berg card:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...rg-father.html

You said "You may not like it, but not everyone who worked for him was a terrorist; some of them wanted the occupying force to get the fuck out of their country". If you had said not everyone in the insurgency was a terrorist, you would have been right. But you said that about Zarqawi's organization specifically, which doesn't hold up; they're terrorists, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Jerrica

I just happen to believe that Zarqawi's group is one of the largest and better equipped/trained, thus representing more of a military than a militia. I also believe that those fighting against the Americans for reasons of sovereignty as opposed to religion would find it most expedient to ally themselves with the strongest internal resistance movement, which appears to have been Zarqawi's group.

Zarqawi's organization represented, according to U.S. military estimates, 12% of the insurgency; that still leaves 88% who aren't Al Queda. Further, the jihadist types are also not overly loved by the Iraqi nationalist types and vice versa (Hamas' relationship with Fatah makes for a worthwhile comparison). I somehow doubt that those 12% are the strongest force fighting in the insurgency.

Nor are they likely the best trained and equipped, since the Baathist and Sunni insurgents undoubtedly have former Army, Republican Guard and Mukhabarat personnel at their disposal, and since one of the biggest blunders the CPA made was disbanding the Iraqi Army without disarming it first.

Al Queda in Iraq may have been the most vicious group in the insurgency, but that doesn't make them the strongest.

Originally Posted by Jerrica

He killed Americans because you invaded his country.

The United States didn't invade Jordan. Zarqawi was a Jordanian..a foreigner in Iraq, leading a band of terrorists, many of whom were also not Iraqi. He also conducted terrorist operations in Jordan against his own countrymen.

12% isn't such a measly portion when you look at how fractured the "insurgency" is. If the other 88% aren't united, then Zarqawi's faction may indeed be one of the strongest and largest groups operating within the country. And until someone passes out a questionaire to every militia man in Iraq, I won't be convinced that everything is as clear cut, as party-line as Bush makes it out to be.

You and I clearly disagree on the legitimacy of the word "terrorist" as it applies within a war zone. Nor is branding someone with that word "pure and simple." Honestly, the rate at which the American government and media bandies that label around has made it nearly devoid of meaning.

The relationship between Fatah and Hamas might be a relevant comparison, but then again, it might not. The situation in Palestine, while similar to Iraq, is still very different. Palestine and Israel have been at each other's throats for years; Fatah and Hamas have had lots of time to polarize, while both grew frustrated by their own impotence. The Iraqi "insurgency" is having a greater measure of success, and they haven't had years of downtime to fight with each other as effectively as Hamas and Fatah have. I do agree that there may be no love lost between the different factions, but there is still a possibility that they are cooperating to some degree, and I think this possibility is what made Zarqawi "the most wanted man in Iraq." He made a good banner around which others could rally. He is a charismatic leader and his group gave every appearance of being effective in combat. The worst nightmare of the illegally-occupying American imperialists -sorry, American Army (see why labels are no fun? ;_- is a united Iraqi "insurgency."

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Wesker

The United States didn't invade Jordan. Zarqawi was a Jordanian..a foreigner in Iraq, leading a band of terrorists, many of whom were also not Iraqi. He also conducted terrorist operations in Jordan against his own countrymen.

I'm failing to see your point, exactly. Iraq didn't attack the US. The US are foreigners in Iraq, leading a band of soldiers, most