Zarqawi in the Dead Book
- Thread starter John Uskglass
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
about damn time
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I like how CNN just kept playing footage of Zarqawi shooting a SAW. It's like the only thing high-profile terrorists enjoy doing is shooting guns at nothing.
They shouldn't have bombed him the way they did.
Ladies and gentleman, we got him!
No, not him, the other him.
Guess how much difference it will make?
Good guess.
PS: John, I've told you before, man, for the love of Frith, a link is not a start of a topic. If you want to add a topic add some substance.
No, not him, the other him.
Guess how much difference it will make?
Good guess.
PS: John, I've told you before, man, for the love of Frith, a link is not a start of a topic. If you want to add a topic add some substance.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'm more worried about who will step up to take his place, than the fact that this fucker is finally dead. The only thing I can do is hope that this will just create more division within the insurgency and/or the al-Qaida terror cell in Iraq and eventually large disbandments.
But, then again, let's say this does lead to an eventual large decrease in insurgency and terror cells. Lord knows what the remaining ex-insurgents will turn to next. Drugs, kidnapping, serial killing, assassins, or more footsoldiers for Bin Laden's cause, or perhaps a surfacing of numerous new terror cells. Either way, Iraq, at best, will probably turn into another Columbia. If, they can win, that is.
But, then again, let's say this does lead to an eventual large decrease in insurgency and terror cells. Lord knows what the remaining ex-insurgents will turn to next. Drugs, kidnapping, serial killing, assassins, or more footsoldiers for Bin Laden's cause, or perhaps a surfacing of numerous new terror cells. Either way, Iraq, at best, will probably turn into another Columbia. If, they can win, that is.
People don't seem to graps the complications of this event.
They guy was bombed to death without any form of trail - neither for him or the people with him in that house.
'Course, you might say - it's a war, that's normal.
But technically, this isn't a war. American big-shots have proclaimed that terrorists are no POW's, are are therefore not susceptible to the Geneva convention.
Therefore, if they are not soldiers, they are citizens.
And you can't just bomb citizens. Either they should adapt a new way of apprehending terrorists, or they should let those poor fuckers in Guantanamo go.
Also, all they did is make a martyr out of him.
They guy was bombed to death without any form of trail - neither for him or the people with him in that house.
'Course, you might say - it's a war, that's normal.
But technically, this isn't a war. American big-shots have proclaimed that terrorists are no POW's, are are therefore not susceptible to the Geneva convention.
Therefore, if they are not soldiers, they are citizens.
And you can't just bomb citizens. Either they should adapt a new way of apprehending terrorists, or they should let those poor fuckers in Guantanamo go.
Also, all they did is make a martyr out of him.
Pale Horse said:
People that've paid attention to AQ in Iraq lately know Zarqawi wasn't exactly the brains behind the organisation anyway. He was more of a rough-hewn warlord-type, good at waving guns around, inspiring the masses and making stupid, thoughtless assaults, but not much for leadership material.
I can't see anyone replacing him that won't inevitably be more clever, tactically-minded and deadly. And that wouldn't be nice.
...since when?
Also, stop whining, Jebus, he was derruhrist!
Didn't the US cause the Al-qaida presence in Iraq anyway? Good job!
Kharn said:
sounds a lot like bush, doesnt it?
brandons1313
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Wooz said:
Lol. Thats a good one.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Ugh, actually it could make a difference. Honestly. Zarqawi was one of the few influential people who really worked towards creating a massive, Rwanada-esque civil war, and with him out of the picture combined with quite a bit of improvement in the Iraqi government things could, honestly, get better. Honest.
No, that's moronic. This guy was trying to ferment a genocidal civil war. Not only 'trying' actually, he was succeeding. That makes him worthy of being bombed if ANYTHING makes a person worthy of being bombed
Yes, just like the capture of Hussein totally turned things around.
You have very little understanding of both AQ as an organisation and Zarqawi as a person if you think this'll make anything better. See my post above.
The actual good news is the final instatement of new ministers of defence and interior affairs. About time!
You have very little understanding of both AQ as an organisation and Zarqawi as a person if you think this'll make anything better. See my post above.
The actual good news is the final instatement of new ministers of defence and interior affairs. About time!
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Hussien was hiding in a whole in the ground. Zarqawi was at the head of the Sunni fundamentalist insurgents. And the Baathists turned him in to US. This means that:
A) That Baathists are fed up with the civil war
B) The head of the worst faction in the conflict, the one that was most likely to plunge the country into more violence is dead.
That's big. I'm not saying it will be a cureall, but I don't see how this could have anything but a positive effect. I mean Zarqawi was extreme by Osama's standards. The guy was Hitler to Osama's Mousillini: Zarqawi wanted to pursue war against the Shi'ia, the Coalition AND the Baathists at the same time. And kill all of them.
Yes, my master, you clearly know more then me on everything. Surely every report I have read over the last 12 hours is entirely wrong!
John Uskglass said:
Either that or they just double-crossed an incompetent leader.
Duh, gypsy. If you think all of Zarqawi's enemies are de facto our friends, good guys, you are sorely mistaken.
John Uskglass said:
But the faction isn't.
John Uskglass said:
Yes.
And you think his replacement will be better? You think his replacement will be an even more incompetent commander?
You think his martyrdom will be irrelevant?
John Uskglass said:
12 hours?
Also, you should know better than to result to simple childishness. Shame on you.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Baathists did not like Zarqawi. They may be Nazis, but Nazis are anticlerical in any case.
I think they are Nazis. But I also think that they wish to create an Iraq with an effective central goverment that they will eventually come to dominate. Genocide and civil war is not thier interest.
No, it is not. But it is entirely likely that somewhat cooler heads will prevail. A cooler head then Zarqawi's, remember, includes Osama's.
Replacements do not come out of the woodwork. They take months of consolidation, and rarely are they as influential or powerful as the original. In this case it is some of the most crucial months in recent Iraqi history as the Iraqi Sunni Islamofascists scrambe about like a headless chicken.
I think he will have less power. Terrorist organizations tend to splinter once a particularly awful and violent leader has been assassinated.
I presume you are familiar with the history of the SR Combat Organization after Gershuni was sold out?
I think people who like him will be furious, and those who do not will not care. His killing was understandable from any perspective outside of Jebus'.
While a trial should have taken place, I don't thank anyone here is so illusioned that they'd think it to be any more than a formality.Jebus said:
They are criminals more than just simple citizens; there are times when criminals, particularly rabid ones, simply need put down. However you are right on one point here, it's have been best if he was captured, not bombed. However, by not capturing him , we also avoided the inevitable wave of hostage-takings with demands of his release and other useless, but horrible, terrorist measures. Either way, the americans are justified, but capture would have been the better approach, for both an information and fairness perspective.
I do have to wonder how much intel was destroyed in that bombing, both in the form of the people around him, or physical documents. While Zarqawi would have given up nothing, those around him, when removed from his presence, may have been able to turn something up.
Which is why in situations like this, I'd love to see russia's way of dealing with these fuckers adopted. Bury them in pigskin, deny them the afterlife that goes with "martyrdom".
Zarqawi was far from incompitent, he was brutal, fanatical, and unrealistic often, but not incompitent. He was a good planner and a charismatic leader.
That's half this whole mess too. Far too many factions with too many personal agendas in that area.
People like him tend to attract like minded people, there will be more brutal madmen ready to step up in his organization, I only hope they don't have a reasonable plan for who takes over and split in internal strife. However, I know better than to actually expect such fortunate results.
John Uskglass said:
Wether or not he was 'worthy' is irrelevant - I'm fairly sure Filip Dewinter, the Flemish friendly neighbourhood Nazi, also fits the description you gave there, yet if anyone were to bomb him he probably wouldn't recieve world-wide fame and glory.
If you just bomb people, no matter how criminal they are, you create an athmosphere of lawlesness and government terror. Defining wether or not people are 'worthy' of being bombed without trail is arbitrary, and could easily lead to abuse of power. Like, y'know, Saddamn Hussein did. And I guess that's not the way the US wants to steer Iraq.
But the irony is lost on many.
PhredBean said:
That is, sadly, also true.
Guarantee of law is, as Suleyman the Magnificent put it, the basis of any stable and prosperous nation. If a government puts up mainly fake trials, like the Saddam one, you are creating the same athmosphere of lawlesness, arbitrary law and government terror as I noted above. Everybody should be equal for the law, no matter how dispised he might be in the public eye.
That's, y'know, democracy. The very reason the US invaded Iraq in the first place.
Phredbean said:
To be fair, he probably wouldn't let himself be captured anyway. But even a formality of an attempt to arrest him would've been better than killing him and bystanders with bombs from two F-16's.