Al - Zarquai Killed in Iraq!!!
- 06-08-2006, 07:47 AM
- 06-08-2006, 08:01 AM
- 06-08-2006, 08:37 AM
06-08-2006, 08:41 AM
06-08-2006, 09:12 AM
06-08-2006, 11:02 AM
06-08-2006, 12:31 PM
more details are emerging... an f16 levelled the home he was in witha 500lb bomb.
I would have made him die slow. the ****er is personally responsibel for thousnads of civialians death
he's burning in hell right this minute. no virgins for you!
06-08-2006, 12:37 PM
I don't how many people he personally beheaded or killed in some other way, but this is one piece of **** the world is much better off without. Now I want them to nail Bin Laden, even if only to hear the conspiracy theories because it's getting near election time.
06-08-2006, 01:09 PM
you should see the arab news. they are down playing this so much... saying how UBL disliked zarqawi because he tried to push muslims against muslims... they are talking about how hamaas members are dancing in the streets happy because UBL can take back and unite iraq against the US and GB...
they are just calling him a common 2 bit crook from jordan
these people have to start thinking twice because it were Iraqis that gave this guy up.... there are going to be messy and violent days ahead but it looks like some people are starting to feel comfortable enough to start taking ownership of their nation
06-08-2006, 01:49 PM
Actually there is some truth to that. He has become more of a liability than an asset, so his higher up sold his ass down the river. They let him go out in style, so as to get rid of a trouble and gain a martyr.Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
But UBL has no chance in "take back and unite iraq against the US and GB". The event in Iraq is predicated on the Sunnis' ability to hold up to their end of the bargain, not on UBL and his gang of thieves. The Sunnis will just as soon kill them off when it suits them to.
06-08-2006, 10:04 PM
Where are they finding all these virgins? 76 virgins x a boatload of Iraqiis = someone is getting sloppy 100,000ths
06-08-2006, 10:09 PM
06-08-2006, 10:10 PM
06-08-2006, 10:14 PM
thats the gag! No one is... we were only going to pay if he was taken alive by police/military forces.. but the people that actually gave him up were of his own sect
06-08-2006, 10:51 PM
They should just drop 1 bomb and be done with it...the place is a breeding ground for hatred...they hate us and always have...round them up and get them out of this country...Originally Posted by judge-mental
06-09-2006, 03:22 PM
The scumbag was still alive when our troops found him. So he knew who fcuked him to hell.
What a befitting end.
06-09-2006, 03:31 PM
I say wrap him in bacon before ya bury him.
No virgins for you!
06-09-2006, 04:13 PM
I think he was a pathetic human being and no doubt responsible for the deaths of a countless number of innocent individuals. However, with that being said his death IMO serves only two real functional purposes. The first being now the current administration has a reference point to which they can point and say "Look, we really aren't retards". The second being a moral boost of sorts for what disgruntled troops there may be, so they know they are not fighting this war for nothing. I had seen the father of Nick Berg (beheaded by Zarqawi) state that this changes nothing, and unfortunately I have to agree with him. One death does not solve the socio-political catastrophe the US has placed itself in. It does not solve the ever-growing anamosity towards the Western World in Arab countries, it in fact perpetuates it. One of the most ironic points on his death, is that there was not an Al-Queda presence in Iraq before the US made it's decision to invade. Essentially the killed their own monster.
06-09-2006, 04:52 PM
Possibly so, I agree to a point. There is a point though, somewhat limited to western civilization I'm finding lately, about personal responsibility and accountability. Because of what he did he deserved to be punished. He deserved to be killed. It's kind of like saying imprisoning or killing a particular murderer or child molester makes no difference. In the end with the way people are, I'm inclided to agree. Locking up or killing this or that particular criminal doesn't stem the tide of crime, criminals will tend to do what they will, within some bounds, regardless of the punishment. However individual punishment is still justified. It's a matter of right and wrong, and justice.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
So if you phrase it like this: "The operational leader of a terrorist group has been killed and is soon to be replaced," yeah it seems a bit weak. But you can also phrase it like this: "The man personally responsible for God knows how many deaths of innocent people has been brought to justice." Might not make that big of a difference in the war, that remains to be seen. How he was found has some good implications for us. Sure as hell makes a difference to those who lives were destroyed and forever altered by this prick though. Sometimes you need to step forward and not see the larger picture, but the details, and in this case the details said he deserved two five hundred pound bombs detonated up his ass. Job well done in my opinion.
06-09-2006, 05:09 PM
Actually, no. Contrary to the naysayers, the killing of the scumbag changed a lot of things.
".....Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death is, like Branch Rickey's definition of luck, the residue of design.
A U.S. Air Force strike on a farmhouse near the Iraqi town of Baqubah killed Zarqawi, known as Z-Man to his pursuers. His deeds mark him as a savage mass murderer and a religious zealot with a mile-wide streak of megalomania. He was also a gambler, an operational terrorist "commander" who sought to incite a sectarian civil war, theorizing a Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq would (in his words) "rally Sunni Arabs" to al-Qaida.
Zarqawi understood his own strategic dilemma. He knew an Iraqi democracy means the defeat of his brand of Islamo-fascism. In a letter from Zarqawi to his al-Qaida superiors, captured in early 2004, the terrorist chieftain wrote: When "the sons of this land (Iraq) will be the authority ... this is the democracy. We will have no pretexts (i.e., for waging a terror war)."
The nickname Z-Man may suggest a Hollywood thriller with a conclusive chase scene. The hunt for al-Qaida's Prince of Iraq, however, has been long, complex and frustrating. In 2004, when I served in Iraq, Z-Man topped Multi-National Corps-Iraq's wanted list. One of the special operations liaison officers attached to Corps' headquarters would greet me in the morning with a wry, "We were busy last night." The special ops personnel stay busy -- but hunting senior al-Qaida leaders ranked as the highest priority. The corps' senior special ops liaison officer told me the week I left Iraq: "We'll get Zarqawi, eventually. But it's a hard, slow job finding one guy with the kind of protection he has. It's not a Hollywood movie."
The hard, slow work of collecting and analyzing intelligence leads might yield an ephemeral intelligence breakthrough, one requiring near-instantaneous rapid reaction in order to launch a successful strike on the terrorist and his cohorts.
Zarqawi evaded several close encounters of the lethal kind with Coalition special operations forces. This week, Z-Man's luck ran out.
Zarqawi's death is not a major military victory, but it is a major political victory for the Iraqis and the new Iraqi government. Terrorist car bombs will continue to explode and murder men, women and children. Iraqi commentators, among them Omar of the Web log Iraq-the-Model, believe al-Qaida will launch revenge strikes.
Zarqawi's death is not a turning point. The War on Terror is a war of ideological and political attrition, and in wars of abrasion there are few turning points, only long trends. The long-term trends in Iraq are positive -- an emerging democracy in the heart of the politically dysfunctional Arab Muslim Middle East is astonishing news.
Zarqawi's death does give Iraq a significant psychological boost, and provides Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's new government with a huge political and media opportunity.
Maliki and his government are building a democratic political process -- a difficult job where successes are incremental. Removing Zarqawi forwards that process, in several ways.
Maliki promised the Iraqi people he will improve the internal security situation. Beginning in late 2003, Zarqawi attempted to ignite a sectarian civil war between Iraqi Shias and Sunnis. Maliki can use Zarqawi's death to help heal those sectarian rifts in Iraq.
Zarqawi's death serves as an important media and political touchstone for the new Iraqi government. The successful counter-terror operation focused international press attention on the prime minister's appointment of a new minister of defense, minister of interior and minister of national security. His cabinet is now complete.
Maliki must take further advantage of the moment. Terror bombs draw large headlines -- and that's understandable, for the bombs are dramatic news. Over time, however, media focus on bombs and terrorist massacre has tended to obscure or limit recognition of Iraq's incremental successes -- the daily, meticulous, trial-and-error efforts it takes to create a democratic state and win a war. Bombs have media sizzle -- an explosion gives a TV producer a "hot image" that attracts eyeballs. Bricks lack sizzle, and a story that builds brick-by-brick is tough to cover, especially in a 24-7 news cycle.
Zarqawi's "termination" is a paradoxical headline -- a dramatic event that turns eyes and critical interest toward Iraq's new government and the slow but remarkable successes that created it. ......"
Zarqawi's Death: An Important Opportunity for New Iraq - On Point Commentary by Austin Bay StrategyPage.com
06-09-2006, 05:45 PM
".......June 7, 2006: Al Qaeda's main man in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was killed by a pair of 500 pound laser guided bombs dropped on his safe house north of Baghdad. Seven other al Qaeda members died as well. Iraqi police were sifting through the rubble within minutes, and an American forensics intelligence team quickly showed up, recovering information that led to at least 17 more raids in the next few hours. Since Zarqawi is basically always on the run, he carries al Qaeda headquarters with him, in the form of one or more laptop computers and other records. Much of this apparently survived the bomb blast and was not encrypted, given the large number of raids that quickly followed. Those raids lead to more raids, thus a catch like this mushrooms out for quite a while. Although Zarqawi's organization was separate from the majority of anti-government activity (which is Sunni Arabs trying to regain the power Saddam lost), it still controlled hundreds of operatives, and millions of dollars in cash used to carry out attacks. The capture of all the data Zarqawi had with him is turning into a major defeat for the anti-government forces......."
06-09-2006, 06:07 PM
So, if he was the #2 guy, does everybody just move up one?
Who should I hate now?
Will this mean gas prices will be comming down?
06-09-2006, 06:39 PM
Al Qaeda has named Abdallah Bin Rashid al Baghdadi, head of its shura council in Iraq, as the next scumbag in charge. They are having new business cards printed.
06-09-2006, 10:06 PM
no one is getting the 25 mil. just came in a while ago.. so i guess it just didn't come in.. but anyway.. the tip off came from the "questioning" of one of his top aids that we arrested... so due to how that information came out.. we save the money and will up the bounty on the real number 2 and the new number 3..... i really hope UBL has a mini me
06-09-2006, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by BioHazzard
I could think of a million things I would have loved to do to him in his last moments. Glad I'm done with the military as I'm sure if I was there at that moment, I'd be facing a court martial for acts unbecoming of military personnel I'd name Jayhawk as the guy that would have to retrieve my M-16 outta of his ass!
06-10-2006, 01:35 AM
True. If you view it at the micro perspective his death is a symbol of justice, and reconciliation for the families of the innocent people he killed. When analyzing the situation on an interpersonal level, and one could make a case for a global-moral level, it no doubt has symbolic precendent. I would not disagree with that in the least. However, Joseph Stalin was quoted as saying, "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic". Your line of thinking pertains specifically to the former of Stalin's points. Though massive amounts of blood have been shed in Iraq, in a senseless war, the victims of Abu-Masab were given a face, a tangible reference point for the viewing public. As such, the people of America invested emotional interest in those deaths because they vicariously experienced them through the media, all the while having (up until very recently) an extreme disconnect with the complete picture of Iraq. So, because of the public's connection with Nick Berg and his other victims, Zarqawi's death seems monumental. However, I cannot help but see the relevance in the latter of Stalin's statements. Though his death does serve as a huge moral victory I refuse to be encapsulated by that emotion and lose, even for a second, a grasp on the true reality of the situation.Originally Posted by CDB
You say I should step forward for a second and view the details. Yet, ironically, the current administration used this same logic as they convinced the American public to focus on the one seemingly focal detail of the war in Iraq, that Osama Bin Laden had some connection with Sadaam Hussein. I personally think the time to fixate on details has long passed. If more Americans had a complete understanding of how their vulnerablitity and intense feelings of the need for retribution were taken advantage of to justify an unjust war, I believe they would focus far more on the bigger picture as well
I want to reiterate that I am not trying to dimish the sense of relief and satisfaction that the families of his victims may feel, nor imply in any sense that his death means nothing. I just feel that his death should be viewed as a small moral victory. Viewing it as any more, or focusing too much importance on it will do nothing but perpetuate the situation.
06-10-2006, 10:01 AM
Why isn't both sides happy about this terrorist being dead. Both Dems and Reps should be congratulating each other on this. Is this the end of terrorism and resurgent attacks in Iraq, NO. But that is like saying why arrest the Son of sam, only another serial killer will take his place.
I believe, both sides are being taken over by there fringe, but more so on the Dem side i sadly feel. The last few days, the talking point Dems and some Congressmen are saying the most ass nine things. One Dem pundit was saying this morning that Bush was parading the photos of this dead scumbag and holding press conferences like he was gloating. if anything, Bush has been very restrained in his rhetoric and said the violence will not stop by this guys death. Some have said that Bush did this to improve his numbers and make everyone forget all his failures.
I mean, come on. Whats next, if we find Bin Laden and kill him, will these same people call it a ploy, said we did the wrong thing because now he is a martyr, that violence begets violence, that it is a ploy to improve his numbers???
I usually am not happy by the death of another human being, but when a killer like Al Zarquai, Bin Laden, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin die, whether at the govts hands, there own hands, natural causes, accidents etc I am happy to the thought that now that person will not be able to destroy someone elses right to live.
Dems should stop this non-sense of whenever something good like this happens to find the grey cloud in the silver lining. I dont agree with Jack Murtha, but at least the guy said it is a good thing this guy is gone now.
06-10-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
Not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I am not an American, and if I was would not align myself along political lines. To address the silver-lining concept, if you read my posts I never once said this is not a good thing. What I was trying to state however, is that though this small victory can and will be savoured by a select few, the masses SHOULD NOT be lulled into thinking this is a significant military victory. It simply is not. In such global matters I do not think it is pertinent to focus too much on the death of one individual. As I said before it was this same logic that led the United States into this war in the first place.
Also, to both CDB and Dinotrainer, I do not think the "why arrest the Son of sam, only another serial killer will take his place" argument has much precident here. Although there are, and have been many serial killers, as their cases standed they are isolated individuals. Arresting that one serial killer is effective as it eliminates the threat of that one individuals further course of action, there is a direct correlation between crime and personal accountability. Although another serial killer will arise, he will not continue on the same path, for the same victims, in the same city, etc., Seeing as Zarqawi was part of a vast network, that if left continually unchecked can/will threaten the safety of individuals everywhere, trying to create an analogy between his deeds and one individual serial killer has no merit beyond that of personal satisfaction and closure for his known victims families. Zarqawi is not a serial killer in one city, he is a small part in a now global socio-political, socio-economic and unfortunately religious struggle. Although his death is great for the families, it really does have no bearing on the entire stuggle.
06-10-2006, 03:40 PM
That is simpy dead wrong. Such statement simply contradicts reality.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
06-10-2006, 03:45 PM
The Dems have never failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.Originally Posted by DinoTrainer
They just can't stand that the good side is winning.
To them, partisan politics trump national interest and basic human decency.
Time was, the elder statesmen in political parties, put national interest above partisanship. These days, you can't find that in the opposition anymore. They have sold everything down the river, just to get back into power.
06-10-2006, 04:07 PM
Hmm..Contradicts reality, I do not see your logic there. I think you are failing to realize that this organization, the people behind it are not driven by petty resolve, it is not as if they are a street gang. They are driven by an extreme loyalty and frightening interpretation to a religion that I do not think you comprehend. This is not the same as taking out a crime boss, or a leader of the Hell's Angels. It will not simply 'fall apart' because a significant figure has been dismantled. These are people willing to kill themselves and anyone else that stand in their path because of their strict adherence to their ideology. Al-Qeada is not one man, or two men, or 100 men. It is a framework of frightening ideologies, that will continue to proliferate until something is done to cure the disease, not the symptom. I think it is you who needs to grasp reality, not my statement.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
06-10-2006, 04:16 PM
yeah right.. Holy ****! We had better go with you to bent over and drop our pants for Osama then.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Go check with the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Saudis, the Jordanians, about how and what they have been doing to 'cure the disease' RIGHT NOW. Hell, go check with the French about what they have been doing for years by now. That's right, the FRENCH.
Do some research and find out how Islamo (and other religious) Fanatism has been defeated in the past. That's right, it has been done in the past.
Then come and tell me which version of the reality you are in.
06-10-2006, 04:19 PM
BTW, you can come out from underneath the table now, Al Qaeda's ideology is a bust. I guess you have not heard the news yet.
Al Qaeda is the most hated group in Iraq, Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya etc.... (edited to add Afghanistan to the list , yeah imagine that!! The liar of the beast has turned against it.)
What a true tragedy for the bleeding hearts......
06-10-2006, 04:44 PM
Holy Cow! You should be ashamed of yourself, you warmongering GI JOE! Where is your compassion, dude??Originally Posted by Viperspit
We should indict those who outrageously murder this freedom fighter!! Damn them!
We should have read him his rights, provided him with legal counsel, made sure he was not physically nor emotionally distressed. We must tend to his religous needs, provide him with a Quran, a praying facility, and cater to his religious diet.
Afterall, we should never have sank to his level. We mush show him compassion!!
It wasn't even his fault. It is our fault that he has become this way. So, we are to blame!
06-10-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by BioHazzard
haha, I believe you and I are as far from Liberals as can be I'm one that believes that a good offense is the best defense. Don't wait for the $hit to land in your lap, get off your ass and bring it!
06-10-2006, 04:58 PM
06-10-2006, 05:00 PM
Here is for your reading pleasure, bro...Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Death Could Shake Al-Qaeda In Iraq and Around the World
"Death Could Shake Al-Qaeda In Iraq and Around the World
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 10, 2006; A01
BERLIN, June 9 -- The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could mark a turning point for al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, according to terrorism analysts and intelligence officials.
Until he was killed Wednesday by U.S. forces, the Jordanian-born guerrilla served as Osama bin Laden's proxy in Iraq, attracting hundreds if not thousands of foreign fighters under the al-Qaeda banner. At the same time, Zarqawi had grown into a strategic headache for al-Qaeda's founders by demonstrating an independent streak often at odds with their goals.
Despite written pleas from bin Laden's deputy to change his tactics, Zarqawi alienated allies in the Iraqi insurgency as well as Arab public opinion by killing hundreds of Muslims with suicide bombings. Zarqawi, a Sunni Muslim, repeatedly attacked Shiite shrines and leaders in a bid to fuel an Iraqi civil war, instead of primarily fighting the U.S. military and its partners.
As a result, counterterrorism officials and analysts said, Zarqawi's al-Qaeda in Iraq had become increasingly isolated and marginalized in the past year.
"A number of al-Qaeda figures were uncomfortable with the tactics he was using in Iraq," said Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "It was quite clear with Zarqawi that as far as the al-Qaeda core leadership goes, they couldn't control the way in which their network affiliates operated."
Zarqawi gave a boost to the al-Qaeda network by giving it a highly visible presence in Iraq at a time when its original leaders went into hiding or were killed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. He established al-Qaeda's first military beachhead and training camps outside Afghanistan.
He was also a master media strategist, using the Internet to post videotaped beheadings of hostages and assert responsibility for some of Iraq's deadliest suicide attacks, usually in the name of al-Qaeda. Adding to Zarqawi's mystique was a $25 million bounty the U.S. government had offered for his capture.
It is unclear which of 39-year-old Zarqawi's lieutenants, or deputy emirs, will attempt to fill his role. But whoever succeeds him will be hard-pressed to achieve the same level of notoriety or to unite the foreign fighters in Iraq under a single command, analysts said.
Some European and Arab intelligence officials said they had seen signs before Zarqawi's death that the number of foreign fighters going to Iraq was already waning. For recruitment efforts, the importance of Zarqawi's death "cannot be overestimated," Germany's foreign intelligence chief, Ernst Uhrlau, told the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.
Guido Steinberg, an expert on Islamic radicalism at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said other groups of foreign fighters that kept a loose alliance with Zarqawi, such as Ansar al-Sunna, might turn away from al-Qaeda in Iraq now that he is gone.
"It's a great loss for the these jihadi networks," said Steinberg, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to Gerhard Schroeder when he was chancellor of Germany. "I don't think there is any person in Iraq able to control this network the way Zarqawi did. It's very decentralized. He was the only person in Iraq who could provide the glue.
"By losing Zarqawi, they run the danger of losing Iraq as a battlefield to the nationalist insurgents and others who aren't interested in bin Laden or the global jihad."
For many years, Zarqawi had an arm's-length relationship with al-Qaeda. He met bin Laden in the late 1990s in Afghanistan, but the two clashed personally, according to Arab intelligence officials and former Islamic radicals.
Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda money to set up his own training camp in Afghanistan, they said, but he ran it independently. While bin Laden was preparing the Sept. 11 hijacking plot, Zarqawi was focused elsewhere, scheming to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.
After Sept. 11, with al-Qaeda's leadership on the run from U.S. forces, Zarqawi and his fighters moved into Iran and later into Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq. Zarqawi maintained his independence at first. But after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, he played up his affiliation with al-Qaeda's core leadership when it served his purposes, analysts said. He formally swore loyalty to bin Laden in October 2004 and changed the name of his Monotheism and Jihad network to al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Both sides benefited. By using the al-Qaeda name, Zarqawi bolstered his legitimacy and attracted media attention, as well as money and recruits. In turn, al-Qaeda leaders were able to brand a new franchise in Iraq and claim they were at the forefront of the fight to expel U.S. forces.
But the relationship was fragile, and Zarqawi provoked the ire of al-Qaeda's founders by focusing less on U.S. military targets and by killing or injuring thousands of Iraqi Shiites. In September 2005, U.S. intelligence officials said they had confiscated a long letter that al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had written to Zarqawi, bluntly warning that Muslim public opinion was turning against him.
With Zarqawi gone, some analysts said bin Laden's allies would try to re-exert strategic influence over the remains of the al-Qaeda network in Iraq. If al-Qaeda fails to maintain a high-profile stake in the conflict with U.S. forces in the region, the analysts said, its relevance in the jihadist movement will quickly diminish.
"I don't believe al-Qaeda in Iraq will die as a result of the death of Zarqawi," said Mustafa Alani, a terrorism analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "Al-Qaeda headquarters will now have more influence on the Iraqi branch. At least, I think they'll be in a far better position than before."
Others said Zarqawi's death is likely to widen the factional splits that have been developing for years within the global movement. More and more, Islamic radical groups are becoming splintered and are only loosely affiliated. While they may be united in a broader struggle against the United States and the West, they often have different aims and tactics.
Nawaf Obaid, director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, said Zarqawi's network had already been eclipsed in size and strength by other groups of foreign fighters in Iraq. He said units led by Egyptian, Saudi and Algerian commanders posed a much more serious military threat than al-Qaeda in Iraq, although much less is known about how their operations are organized. The strongest, he said, are North African groups in Iraq composed largely of veterans of the civil war in Algeria.
"They're completely autonomous organizations," Obaid said in a telephone interview from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. "They're more powerful than Zarqawi was and have more weaponry and money at their disposal. They all have their own networks, their own fundraising abilities and their own way of bringing in fighters."
Considering how much Al Qaeda is hated in Iraq, I would love to see how those foreign groups do in Iraq, especially since those foreigners are basically being hunted down and killed mercilessly in their own countries.
06-10-2006, 07:36 PM
Yes, they are hated in Iraq and there is a very few number of Arab countries which harbour/support terrorists. Yet you very effectively proved my point, that he was only a small part of a vast network, and even furthered that same point that we has alienating his seniors. I am not sure why you would post that article in your defense, it actually work quite the opposite, and iin favour of mine.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
06-10-2006, 07:43 PM
Okay, arrogant slander aside, I have done my research. I do not wish to argue with you, but I will ask that you go back and take the time TO READ MY POSTS!. Never once did I include A SINGLE MENTION of any government working with Zarqawi, not once, so I am not sure why you felt the need to include references to those countries. I love, and encourage a healthy debate, but only if the other individual takes the time to read/listen to what I say before responding with assine comments. If you would have read my posts you would have seen that I mentioned the FRIGHTENING interpretation of the Moslem dogma used by these 'Jihadists'. In fact, there are five jihads, the greatest of which being called the 'Great Jihad' which is an internal struggle for religious servitude and loyalty. So, please do not tell me to 'go do research', I was obviously referring to the fanatical, conservative Moslem sects.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Again bro, I would appreciate it if you read my posts before you blurt out arrogant and spiteful comments. My point is TO NOT FOCUS ON ONE INDIVIDUAL in order to treat the symptoms of this struggle aggressively. And not be drawn into thinking one death is going to irexorably change the course of this war, it will not.Originally Posted by Biohazzard
06-10-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Again man, I seriously doubt you understand what point I am trying to make. In no way, shape, or form to I feel in the least pitiful or remorseful he suffered a slow and most likely agonizing death. What my point was, is that it will not make a difference, and to stop looking at the micro perspective and take in the macro. This is a very healthy debate, but your last reponses were slightly immature, and I would appreciate it if you would read my responses like I do yours...
Similar Forum Threads
- By Leggo my Ego in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 15Last Post: 09-22-2006, 12:59 AM
- By ArnoldIsMyIdol in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 2Last Post: 06-08-2006, 01:33 PM
- By Iron Warrior in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 04-24-2004, 01:40 AM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 32Last Post: 03-27-2003, 12:10 AM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 03-24-2003, 12:39 AM