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.
:rofl:
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...:hammer:
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.
I'd name Jayhawk as the guy that would have to retrieve my M-16 outta of his ass!
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.
That is simpy dead wrong. Such statement simply contradicts reality.
The Dems have never failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
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.
yeah right.. Holy fvck! We had better go with you to bent over and drop our pants for Osama then.
Holy Cow! You should be ashamed of yourself, you warmongering GI JOE! Where is your compassion, dude??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'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!
Words of wisdom from someone who has 'been there and done that'. :cheers:haha, I believe you and I are as far from Liberals as can be
:cheers:
Here is for your reading pleasure, bro...
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.Here is for your reading pleasure, bro...
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.
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.
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.
I wasn't referring to you in my post. I was referring to all the Democrats who have been down playing this to ridicolous levels. I have herd what are suppose to be main street democrats say that Bush killed him now to bolster his numbers and the waining support for the war, that he is hyping this up because he held a press conference, and they God forbid, showed a pic of this piece of **** dead, that violence only begets violence, we made him a martyr, and on and on with the non-sense.
Kay, I am actually starting to get aggrevated over this, I DID NOT ONCE SAY THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED HIM!! I am going to go back and quote my own posts so you can see what I said, and then I will say it again.
Like I said. I love a healthy debate, but I take serious offense when someone engages in one, yet refuses to take in and truly disgest what the other person is saying. I have said countless times that I do not feel that they should not have killed him, or that killing him will yield absolutely nothing. What I said, and meant, was that when one views the entire socio-political event of this war his death is not a major military or functional victory. The point of my posts is to realize one man did not start a war, one man does not carry it out, and one man's death does not finish it. What got your country in this war in the first place is the attitude of personal accountablity and retribution, coupled with intense feelings of vulnerability and a breeding, if only temporary, distaste for the other (being the moslem community). I am trying to stress that in no way is this conflict going to be resolved, or come close to being resolved from one death. He was a waste of skin, and I am glad he is dead, I just will not be fooled into thinking this is a major victory. It would seem the only individual in this thread that took the time to read my posts and glean the point I was trying to establish is BV.
I do agree. I just find the situation a bit odd. The guy deserved what he got, and now everyone who was using his at large status as some kind of evidence of ineffectiveness in Iraq is now playing down his death as nothing big. I find the double standard interesting. I don't think Iraq is a good situation, don't get me wrong. If we are successful there it may end up being a good thing, but I personally think we'll have to be there 20 years easily to be succesful, and I doubt that will happen. I think the place will fall apart shortly after the first major US troop withdrawals.
Good point.
I agree.
I was only pointing out the lack of deterance that this one kill is likely to provide doesn't take away from the point that he deserved to die.
No one who knows what is going on, is cowing in fear. We know how to deal them and we are dealing with them. Mullet, I said I wasnt talking about you, but of the debate that started to rise immediately after finding out he was killed. I was addressing what democrats are saying, not what you were saying.
You're right. Truly, how could I have been so foolish to not see how the US military has this entire situation under complete control? Well it is probably because, as CDB said, there is not a chance the US will pull out of Iraq successfully unless they are there for 20 years.
Lefties? America haters? Is your argument and belief system that desperately one-sided that you result to labelling when you don't have perspective on another individual's view? There are many labels I could have immaturely placed on you given your previous responses, but I usually like to base my comments on the statements, not who I think the person is.
If thinking logically and not wholey ingesting every word George W. Bush struggles to say is despicable then I may very well be the most horrible person on earth.
This is the same type of ignorant attitude that will keep your country there for 10 years. The "1 jihad, 2 jihad, big jihad, little jihad, or great jihad" is an integral part of the culture that your president has aligned himself against. Effectively, his military is only fighting the extremists, but there is a growing contempt for the United States in the Middle East. It may benefit you to drop the inherent racism in your comments and learn something about the Moslem religion and culture.Who gives a sh1t about 1 jihad, 2 jihad, big jihad, little jihad, or great jihad? There are all mad dog howling. You can go hide under the desk, but like they said,"You can come out from under the desk now, Nancy. Gunny has your ass covered."
Never once said they should not be.
Yes, you are right, analyzing a situation under it's socio-political lines is complete crap. Taking into account the religious and social history of the region, in order to truly understand it's inherent connection with political happenings of the region is being a pussy. We should follow your logic and just destroy every individual whose skin isn't the same shades as ours. I truly despise labelling people along political lines, because I believe it implies a certain extremism, and close-mindedness, not only on their part, but on mine as well. However, your comments unfortunately ooze with an arrogant, "good ol' boy" attitude that displays how much actual thought you invest in global issues. So, I will continue to think logically how an assertive approach fixating on destroying the network's means to transport, communitcate and function properly, effectively treating the disease. You can continue to shoot all the Iraqi's you want and have more of your soldiers killed in a conflict that will drag on longer than you will expect.This 'socio-politico' stuff is crap. Yeah sure, you can convert to Islam (be sure it is Sunni, else it does not count and you are still gonna die), institute Sharia, establish Global Caliphate, submit to the rule of Osama and his clergymen. That is the 'socio-politico' root cause that the Islamo Facists are having issues with. Yeah, good luck with that! Better hurry up and surrender. We don't want to stall on solving the root cause of this big 'socio-politico' problem.
You can go bellyaching about root cause, symptom, compassion, blah blahblah. It is all a total waste of breathe. "You can come out from the desk now, Nancy. Gunny has your ass covered."
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Useless Antifa-Tard killed in Portland | Politics | 0 | |
| Unanswered HELP - Prohormone killed my dick | Anabolics | 89 | ||
|
Re1gn has killed my sex drive. | Supplements | 86 | |
|
Sermorelin adverse reaction almost killed me | Supplements | 5 | |
| letrozole 5mg/week killed my sex drive, but it's coming back | Anabolics | 21 |