home

Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murder

Musab al-Zarqawi did not die instantly. He died on a stretcher awaiting medical help.

President Bush said he was "thrilled that Zarqawi was brought to justice."

Since when is assassination bringing one to justice? I thought bringing someone to justice meant bringing him or her before a court of law to judge their guilt and imposing sentence after the suspect has an opportunity to present a defense.

This is like a scene out of Alice in Wonderland: "No, No" said the Queen. "First the punishment, then the verdict."

And who will get the $25 million reward? The al Qaeda member who turned on Zarqawi? The U.S. is going let al Qaeda have access to $25 million? Some defeat for al Qaeda.

State-sanctioned murder is wrong, whether it's the death penalty in the U.S. or assassinations abroad. While there is a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (Sept. 18, 2001) and a 2002 Joint Delcaration for Use of Force Against Iraq (html version), the war on terror is not the same thing. Zarqawi was not killed in war or combat with Iraq.

I would have no problem with people rejoicing in al-Zarqawi's capture. To rejoice in his murder is inappropriate, and by doing so we stoop to his level. Terrorists kill, civilized people apprehend criminal suspects and bring them before a court.

< Specter Flip-Flops (Again) | Oklahoma Okays Death Penalty for Child Molesters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    Well said, TL. Always trying to be better is a tough thing. But we all need to do it more often.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    Finally someone is making sense here. Thanks Jeralyn for your steady voice of reason which represents current and historical mainstream American values.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    Apparently they knew his whereabouts in a safehouse outside of baghdad. Can anyone tell me why we could not have ordered the marines or the Iraqi police to surround this house and ask for him to come out before firing rounds into the house? Perhaps this would have given him time to release the woman and child killed. Instead we drop 500 lb bombs from warplanes high in the sky and rejoice at the carnage caused below? How primitive we are. No better than the flase images we saw of palestines rejoicing after 9/11. Of course, the reason we do it is for the public. I agree with those who said Zarqawi was dead a long time ago and this was all saved for a time when Bush would need a boost in his approval ratings. It just makes more sense to me. If we wanted justice, we would have tried to capture him.

    One new report reported the news, and the news, but a blip on the RADAR, was that no one would get the $25 mil because in custody informants informed. Translation? "We don't pay those we torture"?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    How many Coaltion troops would have been killed trying to apprehend him, rather than just dropping a bomb on him? How many innocent people would he have killed while we waited for the opportunity? (The obvious non-answer that we killed innocent people with the same bomb, and in previous attempts... there, now nobody has to repeat the point)

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    Were the woman and child "brought to justice" too, Mr Bush? Very very well said TL. Justice is justice, murder is murder, even when it's a murderer who is murdered.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    And what difference has his death made so far? From AP: Violence was unabated Thursday and Friday: _Gunmen kidnapped Muthanna al-Badri, director general of state company for oil projects, or SCOP, while he drove Thursday in his predominantly Sunni Arab neighborhood of Baghdad, ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said Friday. _A fire fight Friday west of Baqouba killed five civilians and wounded three, and demolished five houses, according to regional authorities. _The torso of a man wearing a military uniform was found floating in a river Friday morning near Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, a morgue official said. _Police found five unidentified bodies late Thursday of men who had been shot in the head in eastern Baghdad. _Gunmen opened fire on Friday's funeral procession for the brother of the governor of the northern city of Mosul. Zuhair Kashmola was killed by gunmen on Thursday.

    Our federal criminal justice system is based on rewarding informant testimony. Ask Abramoff or Randy Cunningham or my client who got 15 years for a non-violent drug offense this morning.

    While I certainly agree that crowing about "justice" is out of place here,what is it that makes this "murder"? al-Zarqawi declared and carried out war against this country and the people of Iraq, and we responded. He chose to make all of Iraq a battlefield, and he died on that battlefield. He chose to use explosives in his war, and he died by the same, albeit in a more technologically advanced form. Call it "murder" if you like, if that gives you a soapbox from which to denounce this idiotic, ham-fisted president again, but I think the word "assassination", which you also use, far more appropriate. And this guy needed to be assassinated.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    et al - I wonder how many have died laying on the ground waiting for medical help because of this man. The world is a better place with him gone.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    Roy, To quote Lee Ermey from the Stanley Kubrick Vietnam film, FULL METAL JACKET: Marines die, that's what we're here for. Today we can replace "Marines" with "civilians". Both die, but civilians in Iraq are doing so at a much higher rate. We are supposed to be freeing them from tyranny, but our military considers soldiers more worthy of living than Iraqi civilians.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    How many Coaltion troops would have been killed trying to apprehend him, rather than just dropping a bomb on him?
    If only we would have asked the same question when we decided to invade Iraq. Roy, they are trained soldiers for godsake. We could have had him surrounded with heavy weaponry. Remember Uday and Qusay? How about Saddam? We could have dropped a bomb on all of them too and used the excuse of saving our troops lives.
    How many innocent people would he have killed while we waited for the opportunity?
    We knew where he was. It was at a house outside Baghdad. We have thousands of trained soldiers nearby. We had been following him for two weeks. How many innocent people did he kill during these two weeks. Why didn't we drop a bomb right away. So many questions. It doesn't make sense.

    Obama: Al-Zarqawi Killing 'Gives Us Hope'
    U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Thursday that the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not completely end problems in Iraq, but "gives us hope" that Iraq will stabilize. "I am proud that American troops, with the help of Iraqis, were able to find and kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," Obama said in a statement. "He was a brutal monster whose single-minded goal was to sow instability and the death of innocent Iraqis and American forces." Obama added in the statement, "While this successful attack will not completely end the insurgency in Iraq, it does strike a major blow against al Qaeda and gives hope to the possibility of a secure and stable Iraq." He called al-Zarqawi's slaying "an encouraging development that should fill Americans and Iraqis with pride."
    I'm glad the murderous al-Zarqawi is out of the picture, but I must confess that his death makes me neither proud nor hopeful.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    Peaches the choice to invade Iraq and the argument that decided whether we would occured 3years ago. Your side lost. And then in 2004 we redicided the question and you lost again. The fact that you can't accept this clouds your judgment on any news that comes out of Iraq. This is a war. In war people are killed. Zarquawi was killed. Not murdered, not assasinated. Killed. When you fight a war you try and kill the enemy until they surrender or meet your demands. The only option for him was death and the U.S. military gave it to him. Should we rejoice that he is dead. No. But that doesn't me we shouldn't be happy about the situation on the ground now that he's not part of it.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    Point taken jpaul...assasination is more apt. I personally recant...he was not brought to justice, he was not murdered, he was assasinated.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Peaches the choice to invade Iraq and the argument that decided whether we would occured 3years ago. Your side lost. And then in 2004 we redicided the question and you lost again.The fact that you can't accept this clouds your judgment on any news that comes out of Iraq
    Slado, be careful, you're brain might actually heat up and explode if you think any harder.
    Should we rejoice that he is dead. No. But that doesn't me we shouldn't be happy about the situation on the ground now that he's not part of it.
    You are happy no matter what the situation on the ground is. It is war and things are going boom-boom. Just like on the movie screen. Or a video game. Did your side win? Ah-well. Try again.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    Kdog. Are the US soldiers that the insurgents are fighting and killing murdered, assisinated or killed?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    Peaches I can blog with half my brain tied behind my keyborad. But thanks for caring :-) I only point out that if US soldiers are killed by insurgents why are insurgents murdered by us soldiers. why the need for the double standard?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cromagnon on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:05:56 PM EST
    While I despise Bush and his crew of crooks and liars as much as anybody, this post is completely ridiculous! Zarqawi WAS NOT murdered! He was an enemy leader involved in a SHOOTING WAR AGAINST US FORCES! Yes its sad that a little girl was killed but Zarqawi bears that responsiblity. How many US commanders are dragging their families around with them while engaged in combat operations? None... Zarqawi was well aware of the risks he was taking by dragging 'innocents' around with him... This is why the Democrats are minority party. Saying idiotic stuff like Zarqawi was murdered! Jeez

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#20)
    by chew2 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    TL, I prefer to see Zarkawi as a lawful enemy combatant, unlike the U.S. government. As such, we can blow him up under the laws of war and the geneva convention. It's not a question of arresting him for any crimes. The U.S. sees him as an unlawful combatant, who is neither protected by the laws of war or the geneva convention. They can do anything to him under that interpretation. It was incorrrect for Bush to speak of bringing Zarqawi to "justice".

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I only point out that if US soldiers are killed by insurgents why are insurgents murdered by us soldiers.
    And I am only pointing out that this killing, murder, or assassination of Zarqawi is just too convenient for Bush. The timing, the 500 lb bomb, the photograph of his face, the berg video, Reports of Zarqawi being alive, Berg in US custody beforehand, No WMD, Saddams supposed ties to AQ, Jessica Lynch, Yellow Cake in Nigeria, the 2000 election, 9/11 and the collapse of towers, the evacuation of Saudi Royal family, My Pet Goat, Wellstones Assisination, EMP weapons, the 2004 election, Exit Polls, and any other tinfoil hat theory that you can think of makes me doubt anything the media reports about the war and has me believing we are living in a world closely resembling Orwells 1984. I got to quit reading those Philip K. Dick Novels or I'm going to end up in a psyche ward soon.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    The fratboy punk/fake cowboy was told by some overpaid consultants who should be shot early in his career that the mystique of frontier justice goes over big with a certain demograph and he's been milkin ever since. He cleaned up Texas by stringin up 150 varmints and since 9/11 he's gone high tech with his lynch mob and taken it overseas. And it still sets the same folks ta 'a whoopin and 'a hollerin - in a very Christian sorta way, of course.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#23)
    by John Mann on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    Are the US soldiers that the insurgents are fighting and killing murdered, assisinated or killed?
    I'll simplify it for you. When a soldier is sitting in his dwelling and a stray mortar round lands on him and he dies, we can say he was "killed". When an unarmed civilian is sitting in his dwelling and some soldiers burst through the door, shooting him so he dies, we can say he was "murdered". When a "terrorist" is sitting in his dwelling, and has been known to have been there for two weeks, and two F-16s carrying 500-pound bombs are sent to drop the bombs on him, we can say he was "assassinated". Or something like that.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    Peaches dont' change the subject. I will assume for the sake of argument you agree with John Manns answer. John, see Cromagnums explanation. This was not an assasination but a killing of an enemy combantant or terrorist. But in reality I think we're just arguing over a word. What about this one. Where the CBS journalists killed, murdered or assasinated?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#25)
    by John Mann on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    But in reality I think we're just arguing over a word.
    I guess. Dead's dead.
    What about this one. Where the CBS journalists killed, murdered or assasinated?
    Is this a quiz? Let's see: I think two were killed and one was wounded.

    Were the CBS journalists killed, murdered or assasinated?
    They were embedded to death. (and that'll teach 'em not to report the good news coming outta Iraq).
    The world is a better place with him gone.
    Only if it means we can get out of there now. Otherwise it's just one more meaningless death.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    How primitive we are.
    Yes Peahes, sadly our advanced technology is way ahead of the primitive way we wield it. That combination makes for a very dangerous world. Slado-
    Peaches the choice to invade Iraq and the argument that decided whether we would occured [sic[ 3years ago. Your side lost.
    Hate to break it to you but you lost too. For reasons that make no sense to me you just don't seem to have noticed.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#28)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:58:02 PM EST
    JustPaul- The choice to make Iraq a battlefield was not al-Zarqawi's, as I recall: it was "Bring-it-on" Bush who started the ball rolling there. Roy opined:
    How many innocent people would he have killed while we waited for the opportunity?
    (The obvious non-answer that we killed innocent people with the same bomb, and in previous attempts... there, now nobody has to repeat the point)
    Roy, it's not a non-answer. If the reason to remove al-Zarqawi was the brutality he inflicted on innocent civilians, you have to be able to tell us why it's okay of us to be killing innocent civilians. I don't care how brutal Hussein was, how evil al-Zarqawi was, or how bad al-Qaeda is, we have to take responsibilty for the trail of human devastation we have left in our wake directly and indirectly in Iraq. Calling civilian deaths "unavoidable collateral losses" or some other such sanitized phrase doesn't lessen the impact on the families of those left behind. That will come back to bite us in the future, because there is no military solution to Iraq. The only solution to any conflict is political, and we are making that harder and harder with every innocent life lost in that god-forsaken part of the world. Doesn't help that we went into Iraq under false pretenses (or have you forgotten "WMD! 9/11! WMD! Saddam Hussein! WMD! Al-Qaeda!" shouted by every BushAdmin toady 24/7 during the runup to the invasion), nor does it help that we went in with insufficient force and a total lack of understanding of what it would take to secure and control what we tore down. Slado- Peaches can speak for Peaches quite well. But your comment
    Peaches the choice to invade Iraq and the argument that decided whether we would occured 3years ago. Your side lost. And then in 2004 we redicided the question and you lost again.
    The fact that you can't accept this clouds your judgment on any news that comes out of Iraq.
    is one of the silliest I've seen on this site, except maybe for some of the comments in the "Duke" threads. Some of us opposed this invasion as a stupid. imperialistic adventure from the start. This so-called "war" has been ill-planned from the start. It has had vague objectives which have changed from time-to-time as original justifications (WMD! 9/11!, Killer ROVs, 9/11, WMD!) have fallen by the wayside, or have shown to have been lies. Expertise of military leaders has been ignored and they have been cashiered if their opinions differed from Bush and Rumsfeld. We have been in the field in Iraq for almost as long as we were in the field in WW2, yet we control practically none of the country outside the Green Zone---we can't even seem to secure the road from the airport in downtown Bhagdad. We've seen reports of torture and atrocities by our own soldiers, and although we are told that they are isolated incidents, our leaders aren't doing anything to disavow such activities, either. In the meantime, the hunt for the one man demonstrably connected with 9/11(!) has been hopelessly sidetracked by our adventure in Iraq, and the Taliban are making a comeback in Afghanistan because we've not left ourselves enough force on the ground to control that mess. So, hey, Slado, I don't think my initial opposition to Iraq clouds my judgement about what's going on over there. In fact, as we go on and on and on in Iraq, I think my initial judgement has been well borne out. I just don't see any reason to change my mind. Just 'cause we lost doesn't mean we were wrong---it just means a lot of people got scared and stupid after 9/11, and a small bunch of people cynically played on that fear. That they "won" don't mean jack to me, except that there are evil people in a lot of places other than Iraq. As for the murder/assassination argument, meh. He's dead, in a way that was stage-managed to give the most possible impact ("Watch the video of the bombing attack on CNN!"). Whatever it was, it wasn't "Justice." Just more hype for the Mighty Wurlitzer.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    Are the US soldiers that the insurgents are fighting and killing murdered, assisinated or killed?
    They are invaders being repulsed. What would you do if a country invaded ours?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:03:39 PM EST
    John Brown's QUOTATION FOR THE DAY:
    "IF THAT CLAIM IS BLACK PROPAGANDA, THEN IT IS CLEVER BLACK PROPAGANDA, WHICH IS ALSO EXCELLENT NEWS." --Columnist Christopher Hitchens, regarding the claim that Al-Zarqawi's death resulted from information that derived from people who were or had been close to him; cited in "A Good Day's Work: Why Zarqawi's Death Matters" (Slate, June 8)
    Now PPJ has his talking points.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#31)
    by Al on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    the choice to invade Iraq and the argument that decided whether we would occured 3years ago. Your side lost.-Slado
    First of all, everybody lost. Second, you're saying that because the decision was made, it cannot be reverted, and therefore arguing is futile. I agree that it cannot be reverted, and add that it was justified at the time with lies about weapons of mass destruction. I agree that the damage that has been done cannot be undone. But none of this implies that debate is futile. There are still important decisions to be made regarding Iraq, and this debate is crucial.

    Killing military ore terrorist leaders in wartime is not assassination, and TL should know better than to call it that. This was exactly the same thing that we did to Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Zarqawi deserved to die, and I for one am happy that he's dead. To pull a quote from an old movie, sometimes dead is better.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    Sailor writes:
    We knew where he was. It was at a house outside Baghdad. We have thousands of trained soldiers nearby.
    Let me explain. "Nearby" translates into miles and miles. Heavy troop movement, either by truck or air, would be immediately spotted and the killer warned. They knew he was there, they knew how to kill him with out a chance of losing him and they did a bang - bang job. Jondee writes:
    The fratboy punk/fake cowboy was told by some overpaid consultants who should be shot early in his career
    Jondee, please be clear. Are you saying the consultants should be shot, or the "punk/fake cowboy?" Inquiring minds want to know. Dadler - What will the Left do when they run out of movies to quote? kdog - Come on, I thought better of you. They were killed because Zarqawki decided to be near them. He killed them as surely as if he pulled the trigger. sailor writes:
    They are invaders being repulsed. What would you do if a country invaded ours?
    If my country had been suffering under the type of brutal dictatorship that Iraq had been I would not regard the troops as invaders. Al - Actually the decision to invade Iraq was made almost five years ago. We would never have invaded if 9/11 had not happened. So in that view, OBL's ploy was successful. Unfortunately for him, Bush upped the ante and OBL is losing the war. Scrutinizer - You forget to mention that so did all the Prime Demos. And they were all getting their information from the same place. Now, if you want to whip out the old "Bush lied" meme be my guest, but I must ask if you think the public actually takes such comments seriously? And by extension, those who claim it?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    Quick to judge from tv shows and magazines, eh JR. I gather your glee at his murder is not based on any personal experience only hearsay.

    Squeaky - he was an enemy who targeted Americans (and Iraqis) for death. He was the one who made himself a target, and he got what he deserved. Would you be happier with him alive? Also, please explain how the killing of Zarqawi differs from the WWII killing of Yamamoto. Bear in mind that claims of "illegal" war are not serious - under US law, this war is legal - the Congress authorized war, and the President is prosecuting it. You may not like that, you may not agree with it, but there it is. WMDs and claims that "Bush lied" also don't enter into it - it's a legal war, and the sooner you wrap your head around that fact, the sooner your opposition might actually make headway - because the claims of illegality merely serve to make rational people ignore everything else you say. So given all that, please explain what, if any, difference there is between this and what we did to Yamamoto.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murder
    If we wanted justice, we would have tried to capture him.
    ... pretty much says it all. Well put, Peaches.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    Killing military ore terrorist leaders in wartime
    Uhh, the war is over. We won.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    PPJ says:
    Sailor writes: We knew where he was. It was at a house outside Baghdad. We have thousands of trained soldiers nearby.
    Jim lied again, I never said that. Hey TL, at what point does someone lying about what someone else said become a warnable/bannable (sheesh, is that a word!?;-) offense!?

    Karbouly the snitch should get the 25 mil. It's much easier to let Karbouly have it than to divide it up 17 different ways.

    Thank you. I've been wanting to rip my eyeballs out over the reaction since the news broke. So a sign that there are some sentient beings left in our country is a big relief for me.

    the author of this blog is an absolute and complete moron. the death of zarqawi is a wonderful thing, and even more than wonderful than that is that he had time to feel the pain and know his death was near. thank God. Justice has been served.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#42)
    by chew2 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    TL
    Zarqawi was not killed in war or combat.
    That is a ridiculous statement. Zarqawi was not "murdered" by some errant cop enforcing an arrest warrant. If an enemy soldier lobbed mortars or bombs on U.S. soldiers sleeping at their bases, that would have been a legitimate act of war against our troops, and protected by the laws of war and the Geneva Convention If we afford the insurgents and Zarqawi respect as lawful warriors, then we can bomb them as well. It's ridiculous as a practical and legal matter to attempt to classify the insurgents who fight against us with the implements of war as domestic criminals. We have no right to enforce U.S. criminal law in Iraq, nor do we really have the right to enforce Iraqi criminal law, since there is supposedly an independent sovereign government in place.

    These comments demonstrate why wars should not be waged by lawyers. We killed the bad guys which was the objective. Justice was served. This is war, not a court of law. That man needed killing and killing is what was delivered. If you folks are squeamish at the idea of the USA killing our enemies, I suggest you roll tape again on the twin towers collapsing and be reminded that they have no such qualms about putting the hammer to us given the chance. War sucks, so we must prosecute it to our greatest capacity quickly and TOTALLY crush our enemies into a state of complete surrender so that we can get back intoa state of peace as quickly as possible. Everyone who is sane and rationale desire peace, but if we have to fight and shed blood, then we should not hesitate, and we should certainly not pussy foot around in a courtroom. This is a war not a legal proceeding.

    Al-Zarqawi's death was not a state santioned murder. It was a battle field killing, in accordance with accepted rules of combat. You pussfoots on the left just don't get it that we are fighting a war, and in a war the objective is to KILL YOUR ENEMIES. In a war killing your enemies is not murder.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#45)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    PPJ- First of all, I didn't say "Bush lied." I said that many of the justifications for the war were based on lies, or "faulty intelligence", or wishful thinking ("They will greet us with flowers.") No matter who lied, our moral justification for this incursion has shifted from one convenient rationale to another. At the same time, we have been told that the planning for the invasion of Iraq had been a goal from the earliest days of this administration (cf Woodward's Plan of Attack), pre-dating all the claims of WMD!, 9/11! by this same group. Even a cursory glance at PNAC documents written long before the invasion took shape show that top officials in this administration were in favor of military action in the region, not to save the region from "a brutal dictator", but to extend American influence in the region. As for the claim that "all the Prime Demos" had the same info that the Bush admin did, that's not true. The Senate had summary copies of the NIE that did not include intelligence agencies' lack of confidence in some of the information in the Presidential NIE. As to your question as to whether I think that the public takes seriously the idea that the Bush administration misled us on Iraq (lied to get us in the war), well, yes, yes I do think so. In fact, in a May poll, 52% of Americans felt that way. James- I don't really care about Yamamoto, to tell you the truth, although I think deliberately targeting him was an assassination. But I also think that it was stupid, 'cause Yamamoto wasn't all that great as an admiral. His attack plan for Midway was fatally flawed. The Pearl Harbor attack (operational planning for PH was not done by Yamamoto Isoroku, but by Genda Minoru) was strategically unsound, and also fatally flawed in the execution. As far as assassination goes, we can look back at the stunning success of Operation Phoenix during the Viet Nam UnWar, or look at more recent successes of Israeli agencies, who (as Digby said) are so successful with it that they have to keep doing it again and again and again. The question is, "Was it justice?" No, it was a revenge killing, and a stage managed public spectacle to feed public bloodlust for a "victory" in Iraq. Fine. We won. We can stop now. Now. "It's a legal war." Big deal. Never said it wasn't---scared people can be driven into voting for all kinds of stupid things (can you spell P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act?) I will say that it's an immoral war, a war based on false statements (wherever they came from); a war based on the principle of pre-emption that the United States has never before accepted, even during the hottest times in the "Cold War"; a war that is eroding our stature overseas; a war that is feeding anti-American feeling and creating more terrorists that we kill, as well as giving them valuable OTJ experience; a war that is brutalizaing our own troops; and it's a war that needs to end sooner than later. Since I answered your question about Yamamoto, answer me this: if killing al-Zarqawi was so important, why did Bush personally turn down the opportunity twice before, once so that it wouldn't blunt the propaganda runup to the invasion of Iraq? bmadison-thank you for your thoughtful comments. You're a great example to the 101st. tribehooker---sorry, I'm not a lawyer. But while we're rolling tape on the Twin Towers, you might want to ask yourself why we never caught the real enemy because we decided to go play in the Big Sandbox instead. But I like all the bloody talk about exterminating the enemy, I really do. You sound just like a movie I saw once. Shame the real world isn't like Top Gun, isn't it?

    Well said, Jeralyn. This is Israeli-style "targeted assassination" writ large, i.e. the complete subersion of the rule of law. I was very disappointed to see Al Gore, last night, on the Tonight Show, applaud Zarqawi's assassination, though I hasten to add that Gore's facial expression utterly shut down as soon as Leno broached the subject. It as if he were suddenly caught in a time-warp, having to answer a "political question" with one eye on a possible '08 run. There is no way he could have gotten away with saying anything other than what he said, but for the first time in a very long time, it sounded like a canned response, and neither thoughtful nor sincere. And he didn't seemto be enjoying having to do it, not one bit. Made me wonder if he really would have the stomach to descend once again into the maelstrom, where he risks being distracted from his mission, which is saving the planet for our species.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#47)
    by svolich on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:51:54 PM EST
    Chew2 wrote I prefer to see Zarkawi as a lawful enemy combatant Zarkawi killed two friends of mine, Moustapha Akkad and his daughter Rima. Here's their picture http://tinyurl.com/jthzb That was taken on her wedding day. That was also the day they were killed, along with her new husband and his parents, at their wedding reception in Amman, Jordan. Zarkawi targeted and killed civilians. That makes him an illegal combatant. He did not kill civilians because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or by accident, or because they were standing in front of a legitimate target. He killed them because they were innocent, and easy to get to. He killed them because they were dancing. If that makes him a "lawful combatant" then every serial killer in every country in the world is a "lawful combatant."

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#48)
    by svolich on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    Chew2 wrote I prefer to see Zarkawi as a lawful enemy combatant Zarkawi killed two friends of mine, Moustapha Akkad and his daughter Rima. Here's their picture http://tinyurl.com/jthzb That was taken on her wedding day. That was also the day they were killed, along with her new husband and his parents, at their wedding reception in Amman, Jordan. Zarkawi targeted and killed civilians. That makes him an illegal combatant. He did not kill civilians because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or by accident, or because they were standing in front of a legitimate target. He killed them because they were innocent, and easy to get to. He killed them because they were dancing. If that makes him a "lawful combatant" then every serial killer in every country in the world is a "lawful combatant."

    "Since I answered your question about Yamamoto, answer me this: if killing al-Zarqawi was so important, why did Bush personally turn down the opportunity twice before, once so that it wouldn't blunt the propaganda runup to the invasion of Iraq?" We weren't at war then, which would have made such an attack difficult from a legal standpoint. I know you people on the left have difficulty with this concept, but the administration actually does follow the laws of war. And before anyone cries "Gitmo", they need to realize that the people we are fighting are illegal combatants - which means that they have no Geneva protections

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#50)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    Chew2-
    That is a ridiculous statement. Zarqawi was not "murdered" by some errant cop enforcing an arrest warrant. If an enemy soldier lobbed mortars or bombs on U.S. soldiers sleeping at their bases, that would have been a legitimate act of war against our troops, and protected by the laws of war and the Geneva Convention If we afford the insurgents and Zarqawi respect as lawful warriors, then we can bomb them as well.
    Chew2 - Apparently you've been watching a different channel. You might want to look at what our military says about insurgency. We don't afford the insurgents any recognition as lawful warriors, instead they are seen as a rebellious faction working against established authority, and in no way do we apply Geneva Convention provisions to insurgents.
    It's ridiculous as a practical and legal matter to attempt to classify the insurgents who fight against us with the implements of war as domestic criminals. We have no right to enforce U.S. criminal law in Iraq, nor do we really have the right to enforce Iraqi criminal law, since there is supposedly an independent sovereign government in place.
    Military Order Number 1 signed by Bush in November 2001. According to this document the US has the right to pick up, detain, and prosecute (by secret trial) anyone the President considers to be a terrorist. Anywhere in the world. Anytime. Without regard to local authority.

    what is an "illlegal combatant"? Is it someone who lives in an area that Bush has illegally attacked?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#52)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    James- Why do you assume I'm on the left becuase I think this war is immoral and wrong? Does that mean that over 50% of Americans are now on the left? Interesting... Anyway, I must point out that under presidential findings back at least to the Clinton Administration (and probably before), military action against suspected terrorists was legal, and had been carried out a number of times, the latest being the cruise missile attack on bin-Laden that was widely derided at the time as a "wag-the-dog" ploy. Bush granted himself the authority to do the same thing after 9/11!. Bush had daily intelligence on al-Zaraqawi for almost one year---and chose to do nothing, except to set al-Zarqawi up as the Emmanuel Goldstein of Iraq (literary reference, for those 101st guys who haven't picked up a book in a long time.) I really like the construction at the end of your post, by the way:
    We weren't at war then, which would have made such an attack difficult from a legal standpoint. I know you people on the left have difficulty with this concept, but the administration actually does follow the laws of war.
    And before anyone cries "Gitmo", they need to realize that the people we are fighting are illegal combatants - which means that they have no Geneva protections.
    So you're saying that the administration follows the law, it really does, except that the law doesn't apply to anyone we decide to call illegal combantants, and if you're an illegal combatant, screw you, we'll take you to Gitmo and do whatever we want. That's really breathtaking in its majesty.

    "In aggregate, the map of the territoryBush won, was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." From Frau Resa's(ann coulter wannabe)website

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#54)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:36:10 PM EST
    Warchick- Bigunit12 (man, that is such a Peter North nick!) is right. You're way hotter than Coulter, and as least as smart. Oughta take that on the road, you'd make a million. Anti-PC chicks with guns. Wow.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#55)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    Bigunit12-- Loved your definition of "illegal combatant."

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    Wow. If you like your logic and reason informed by the sensibility and regard for human life of an Ann Coulter hermaphradoll, by all means go to Warchicks site. That means all you hunky keyboard commandos in need of a little r&r after enduring the din and smoke and cries of agony in moms basement. Its time to take out the trash and I see a few feminazi and tree-hugging liberal heads in there.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#57)
    by chew2 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    Svolich
    Zarkawi targeted and killed civilians. That makes him an illegal combatant.
    No. That only means he may have committed a war crime. He could be caught and punished for that crime, but he could also be killed on the field of battle. Scrutinizer,
    We don't afford the insurgents any recognition as lawful warriors, instead they are seen as a rebellious faction working against established authority, and in no way do we apply Geneva Convention provisions to insurgents.
    I've already noted this. This is what I said:
    The U.S. sees him as an unlawful combatant, who is neither protected by the laws of war or the geneva convention. They can do anything to him under that interpretation.
    I disagree with this. I believe he should be treated like a lawful combatant, but that means we can kill him and it isn't murder or unlawful. The U.S. government takes the position that they can kill him like a soldier, or capture him and hold him without trial or the protections of the Geneva Convention afforded legal combatants or even civilians. So they killed him. It wasn't murder under any legal regime that I know of.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:04:21 PM EST
    Ah, what talk radio hath wrought.

    legal combatants wear identifying uniforms/markings. That's for the protection of civilians, btw - the idea is that soldiers can differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. When someone takes up arms and does not follow that convention, they gain some advantages - but they also lose the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If you don't play by the rules, you shouldn't expect to get their benefits

    The problem I have with al-Zarqawi's assassination and the terminology used to discuss issues like this in the media and in the blogosphere is that we don't have any evidence proving to us that dead bodies were enemy combatants. Everyone arguing that this is a 'war' is completely wrong. A war is conducted between two sovereign nations over territory - land, sea, and airspace. When a dead body is celebrated as a victory for the US, we automatically apply labels to the corpse like 'insurgent', 'terrorist', or 'enemy combatant'. Supporters of this so-called war consider these deaths to be victories, yet they've never seen a shred of evidence that the person who died did anything. Why are you so quick to accept the story fed to you by the alliance between the military and the media? The media certainly doesn't fact check - they rehash military press releases. They can't fact check, because these dead bodies don't have dog tags, uniforms, ranks, or anything identifying them as an enemy combatant. This war is just like the Vietnam War. Our soldiers kill anything that moves, kill and torture non-combatants who are uncooperative, and can't really do anything else because they're constantly in a hostile environment with no time to differentiate between a civilian and someone trying to harm them. The obvious solution to the problems I just mentioned is not to occupy foreign territory. We've moved past the era of international politics where you can conquer enemy territory and the civilians will submit once their soldiers are dead. As long as gun ownership is legal and common, a nation is safe from foreign occupation because the natives will resist until the invader surrenders or successfully commits genocide.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#61)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:46:18 PM EST
    James- Wouldn't matter if the insurgents were wearing uniforms---according to the Geneva Conventions, combatants who are not dressed in uniform are to be afforded the protection of the Conventions if they carry weapons openly during military operations. The Conventions recognize that there will be times when unconventional warfare will be waged, and that combatants will not be dressed in uniforms and formed in regular military units. Basically the Conventions state the conditions under which a person will be treated as a soldier subject to military law, or as a civilian subject to civil jurisdiction. The Bush Administration has attempted to thwart this by coming up with the idea of illegal combatants, who are thus outside the protection of the Geneva Convention on the military side, and civil laws on the other. One of the reasons for this is that AG Gonzales felt that this classification would help keep the Administration from possible indictment under the War Crimes Act.

    Scrutinizer, I'm talking about all the ones who aren't openly carrying weapons. Including al-Zarqawi and the people int hat house when he was bombed. Of course our soldiers have every right to shoot someone seen with a weapon in hand - it's not legal in Iraq right now, and the only possible perspective to have on someone holding a gun is that they're looking to us it against someone. These guys who were waving weapons around aren't the majority of dead 'insurgents' though.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#63)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    JW- I agree with some of what you say---we are probably identifying dead bodies as inusrgents, because it's easier, and because it pumps the body count, although you don't hear that as much as you used to during the Viet Nam war; I still remember listening to the news back then and hearing "Today two American soldiers were wounded, and 175 Viet Cong guerrillas were killed in fighting near Pleiku." Or Da Nang, or Khe San, or whatever. But exaggerated body counts and stage managed executions don't mean that people like al-Zarqawi aren't bad news. That guy was a problem long before Iraq---he was already under a death sentence in Jordan for terror acts committed there. What we did was give him and others like him a target-rich environment. Instead of dealing with him before the war, either by a military strike of our own, or even better, cooperating with Jordanian authorities to bring him to justice, we destabilized Iraq. We left it with no internal security, the result of "denazification" of the police and security forces. Our President gaily dared the terrorists to bring it on. So they did, and we have to bear some of the responsibility for the chaos in that country.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#64)
    by Scrutinizer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    JW- Oh, and Jesus---that thing about the Geneva Conventions wasn't directed at your comment. Like I said, I agree with you completely that many (most?) of the dead insurgents weren't insurging at all. In fact, I seem to recall some reporting after we leveled Fallujah about exaggerations in the force level of insurgents in that city.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    Just as we created Saddam we created al-Zarqawi. Of course, the latter had a much shorter shelf life. A little history:Zarqawi owed his rise to the US in two ways. His name was unknown until he was denounced on 5 February 2003 by Colin Powell, who was the US Secretary of State, before the UN Security Council as the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida. There turned out to be no evidence for this connection and Zarqawi did not at this time belong to al-Qa'ida. But Mr Powell's denunciation made him a symbol of resistance to the US across the Muslim world. It also fitted with Washington's political agenda that attacking Iraq was part of the war on terror.... 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..."

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:27:17 PM EST
    I think that we have a match for ppj, that is, unless she is him.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:46:35 PM EST
    Riverbend, Girl Blog from Iraq is on fire. Her feelings and thoughts on the news:
    How do I feel? To hell with Zarqawi (or Zayrkawi as Bush calls him). He was an American creation- he came along with them- they don't need him anymore, apparently. His influence was greatly exaggerated but he was the justification for every single family they killed through military strikes and troops. It was WMD at first, then it was Saddam, then it was Zarqawi. Who will it be now? Who will be the new excuse for killing and detaining Iraqis? Or is it that an excuse is no longer needed- they have freedom to do what they want. The slaughter in Haditha months ago proved that. "They don't need him anymore," our elderly neighbor waved the news away like he was shooing flies, "They have fifty Zarqawis in government."
    Worth a read.

    what university are you going to?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    Warchick, I have a feeling, if we actually sat down and attempted to have a genuinely human discourse, that it would be possible. And that something enlightening might occur. But that kind of discourse, I assume, might strike you as too emotion oriented, or too touchy-feely, or pussified, or castrated or whatever. But on this thread...not gonna happen. I get your take "history", I've heard it before, but is there ANYTHING you do personally that makes the nation a worse place? Or is it only "other" people who are the problem? That's a difficult question to answer if you really do think your sh*t doesn't smell. And if the USSR was so good at brainwashing, why isn't it still in existence? And what are you afraid of if we learned from them? I'd be more afraid if we learned it from Oprah. By the way, the left also argued for female suffrage, seat belts and alternative energy (long before the right thought energy alts, in fact they mocked the left for it), among many other good things. Do any of those strike you as breaking down under logic or reason?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    Unit, The University of Hard Knockers?

    legal combatants wear identifying uniforms/markings. That's for the protection of civilians, btw - the idea is that soldiers can differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. When someone takes up arms and does not follow that convention, they gain some advantages - but they also lose the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If you don't play by the rules, you shouldn't expect to get their benefits
    So I guess you're cool with the Blackwater mercs being burned to a crisp and strung up on a bridge?

    There is a really good reason why every communist nation on earth has had people risk death to get out of them, and an even better reason why you never see the same terrified and horrifically dangerous exodus from a free Republic.
    Unless they bring back the draft. Then you and bmadison et al will be the first ones to run screaming to Canada.

    "While there is a Congressional declaration of war against Iraq..." There is? I missed this on the first pass and haven't been keeping up with the comments, but, uh, there is a Congressional declaration of war against Iraq? Was that a typo? Huh?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#74)
    by Andreas on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:29:41 PM EST
    There is something not only politically odious, but psychologically perverse in the lurid and manic response of the US government and media to the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The exultation in the Islamist terrorist's demise, replete with gruesome photos of the corpse plastered across newspapers and displayed on TV screens, takes on an almost ritualistic character.
    On the official US response to the killing of Zarqawi By Kate Randall and Barry Grey, 10 June 2006

    Warchick has been banned and his/her comments deleted. So have those of several others that came here via a link from lgf. They didn't bother to read the comment rules and they violated them and now they are not welcome here. So, if the remaining comments don't make sense as as thread, that's why.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:38:54 PM EST
    The US Zarqawi campaign was largely aimed at the American public and above all the American voter. It was intent on hammering in the message that the invasion of Iraq was a reasonable response to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. This meant it was necessary to show that al Qaeda was strong in Iraq and play down the fact that this had only happened after the invasion.
    Patrick Cockburn

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:53:55 PM EST
    Like I said, mercs and professional torturers reap what they sow.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#78)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    There is a really good reason why every communist nation on earth has had people risk death to get out of them, and an even better reason why you never see the same terrified and horrifically dangerous exodus from a free Republic. Someone hasn't been keeping up with events along the Mexican/US border. Mr Accurate writes: Let me explain. "Nearby" translates into miles and miles. Heavy troop movement, either by truck or air, would be immediately spotted and the killer warned. They knew he was there, they knew how to kill him with out a chance of losing him and they did a bang - bang job. This is just more BS. All of the news reports stated that the surveillance had been excellent, and that the airstrike was NOT brought in on an emergent basis. Jim would also have us believe that when a HVT is located, the US military suddenly transforms from an elite strikeforce into a lumbering noisemaker attracting barking dogs and sending up clouds of dust for the "terrists" to see. One difference that should be evident between us and them is that we at least give the bad guys the chance to surrender. Bush has made us all kin to disaster.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#79)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:03:30 AM EST
    Peaches I can blog with half my brain tied behind my keyborad. But thanks for caring :-)
    gee slado, given the pathetic level of your posts, i just assumed, reasonably, that you only have half a brain. turns out your whole one only works like half of one. thanks for clearing that up. :) just an example:
    Peaches the choice to invade Iraq and the argument that decided whether we would occured 3years ago. Your side lost. And then in 2004 we redicided the question and you lost again.
    simply put, it wasn't a fully informed "debate", since the administration withheld critical data from congress. such as the fact that saddam had no wmd's, and wasn't about to bomb manhatten. this would explain why none were ever found based on investigatios into rigged voting in ohio and other states, it's not at all clear that bush actually won in 2004. we know for a fact he didn't in 2000 and another:
    Kdog. Are the US soldiers that the insurgents are fighting and killing murdered, assisinated or killed?
    well, were i an "insurgent", fighting an invading army, i would consider those soldiers criminals, and it would be my patriotic duty to do all i could to either kill them, or get them to leave my country. i would have no sympathy for them, or anyone who helped them. do i want our military harmed? hell no! what i want is for all of them to come home, safely, in one piece. in fact, i would prefer they'd never gone to iraq to begin with. people like slado would prefer to overlook the fact that we invaded iraq, not iraq bombed pearl harbor. an inconvient truth i'll grant you, but a truth nonetheless. if you commit an illegal act, any adverse consequences resulting from that act fall on your head

    Hear, hear, cpinva! And, thanks Jeralyn.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:55:17 AM EST
    cpinva - The question, of course, is this. Given the same type of government, would you even be an insurgent? Apples and oranges, eh? And if you would, wouldn't that be a "my country right or wrong position?" And don't you consider that "bad?" Sailor - No, lie, just a mistake. But then you call evert mistake a lie, eh? You must live an interesting life. "That steak is too rare, you liar, you!" Peaches was the villian, at 2:32PM. I trust both of you are insulted because I comfused one for the other. ;-) But tell me, wasn't I incorrect but accturate?

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#82)
    by Scrutinizer on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    PPK-
    cpinva - The question, of course, is this.
    Given the same type of government, would you even be an insurgent?
    Apples and oranges, eh?
    Let's see---My country is invaded by a bogus international coalition put together mostly through intimidation by one or two countries who have a strong economic interest in controlling the assets of my country. Those countries destroy my country and it's infrastructure, and replace a corrupt ruling elite with a bogus provisional authority that is equally corrupt (just where did that $40B go, anyway?), and that apparently uses one of the old torture camps in the country to torture prisoners. Meanwhile there is no internal security, no infrastructure to speak of, and civilians going about their daily lives are in danger of being gunned down by invading troops through misunderstandings in culture and inability to communicate. Yep, given that situation, I might think about being an insurgent, too. And civilians killed by IEDs meant for troops and police forces? Hey, that's just collateral damage too---just like those people who were unfortunately in the way of those bombs dropped from airplanes.
    And if you would, wouldn't that be a "my country right or wrong position?"
    And don't you consider that "bad?"
    No. I think the "my country right or wrong" argument has been pretty much staked out by the 101st.

    But tell me, wasn't I incorrect but accturate? You're always accturate, PPJ, that's part of the fun of having you here. Preview twice, post once, and you wouldn't be in need of a secretary. That's too easy for a big brain such as yourself, perhaps, but there it is.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:13:57 AM EST
    So time to dispel some myths. Zarqawi did not really belong to al Qaeda. He would have been more shocked than anybody when Colin Powel spoke before the United Nations in the propaganda build up to the war and mentioned Zarqawi publicly for the first time, accusing him of being the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Zarqawi in fact did not get along with Bin Ladin when he met him years earlier. He found Bin Ladin and the Taliban insufficiently extreme and refused to join al Qaeda or ally himself with Bin Ladin, setting up his own base in western Afghanistan instead, from where he fled to the autonomous area of Kurdistan in Iraq, outside of Saddam's control, following the US attacks on Taliban controlled Afghanistan in late 2001. Zarqawi only went down into Iraq proper when the Americans liberated it for him.
    ...
    Zarqawi was not very important in the first place, and hardly represented the majority of the resistance or insurgency. When he arrived in northern Iraq he was a nobody.
    ...
    Although he claimed several significant attacks, such as the United Nations bombing and the assassination of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq leader Muhamad Bakir al Hakim, Zarqawi and his foreign fighters were a numerically insignificant proportion of the anti American fighters.
    It took the United States to make Zarqawi who he became. Intent on denying that there was a popular Iraqi resistance to the American project in Iraq, the Americans blamed every attack on Zarqawi and his foreign fighters, and for a while it seemed every car accident in Baghdad was Zarqawi's fault. The truth was that much of Iraq's Sunni population, alienated by the Americans who removed them from power and targeted them en masse during raids, supported and participated in the anti American resistance.
    ---Nir Rosen, writing for TWN June 09/06

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    This AP piece creates more questions than provides answers:
    Zarqawi died shortly after the U.S. military obliterated his hideout northwest of Baghdad Wednesday with two 500-pound bombs. The bombs tore a huge crater in the date palm forest where the house was nestled outside the town of Baqouba.... Caldwell also said experts told him it is not unheard of for people to survive a blast of that magnitude. "There are cases when people, in fact, can survive even an attack like that on a building structure. Obviously, the other five in the building did not, but he did for some reason," Caldwell said..... So much blood covered al-Zarqawi's body that U.S. forces cleaned him up before taking photographs. "Despite the fact that this person actually had no regard for human life, we were not going to treat him in the same manner," [general] Caldwell said.
    Yes our enemies are not treated in the same manner. How could they be. They do not have Predator Drones, F16 jets, or 500lb bombs. E & P Dexter Filkins adds a very curious new piece of evidence:
    In Ghalibiya, near the scene of Mr. Zarqawi's death, a local Iraqi interviewed by telephone said American commandos dressed in black had raided the hamlet around 4 a.m. The Iraqi, a farmer named Mustafa Muhammad, said a group of local Iraqis, standing guard to protect their predominantly Sunni village from Shiite death squads, fired their guns into the air. "They thought the Americans were a death squad, dressed in black," Mr. Muhammad said. The American commandos threw a hand grenade in response, he said, killing five villagers. The Pentagon does not officially acknowledge the existence of these classified units, and President Bush's comments were a rare acknowledgment of the role these troops played in a high-level mission.
    NYT Wow and I thought is was only al-Sadr's Mahdi army that wore those black outfits. Wonder how many other raids they have pulled off wearing Mahdi Army 'camouflage'.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - Thank you for taking my bait. You struck the lure in record time. And it aint no fun if you have to explain'em, but in your case I knew I would. Consider that the comment was about a mistake.
    ..you call "evert" mistake.. ..I "comfused" one for the other ..wasn't I incorrect but "accturate?"
    Thanks buddy. Love ya! BTW - The secretary position is no longer available, but if it was I would definitely consider you. Che - Looks like you have 20-20 hindsight. Congratulations on such a unique and helpful talent. Squeaky - Yep. Nothing like an Iraqi farmer located somewhere near ... interviewed by...yeah, un huh. Proof positive...eh???? You guys are so funny.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#87)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    Wonder how many other raids they have pulled off wearing Mahdi Army 'camouflage'. Our death squads will stand up as soon as the militias stand down. Or something like that.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#88)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    Che - Looks like you have 20-20 hindsight. Congratulations on such a unique and helpful talent At least my eyes are open.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#89)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    Squeaky - Yep. Nothing like an Iraqi farmer located somewhere near ... interviewed by...yeah, un huh. Proof positive...eh???? Just like your recurrent cancer of a Babalu link.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:39:46 PM EST
    ppj-
    Squeaky - Yep. Nothing like an Iraqi farmer located somewhere near ... interviewed by...yeah, un huh. Proof positive...eh????
    Nothing like a redneck southerner living in America whose only link to reality is Fox, LGF, powerline, and other right wing propaganda spin machines, who regularly spouts off what the Iraqi people want, what they need, what they feel, what is going on over there now as what will happen in the future. Thanks for your prepackaged echochamber insight, but I will go with the Iraqi farmer.

    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:26:50 PM EST
    The Nir Rosen article edger mentioned earlier, The Civil War Continues is really worth reading if you haven't already. He provides some contextural reality :
    We in the media are often pilloried for only reporting "the bad news" in Iraq. But there is no good news. Its too dangerous to even tell you how bad things really are, but they are worse than what you see on the media, not better.


    Re: Why it's Wrong to Rejoice in al-Zarqawi's Murd (none / 0) (#92)
    by roger on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:32:13 AM EST
    Jim, I personally believe that W should be removed from office and sent to the Hague for trial. Does that mean that I would support a foreign occupation of the US? Apples and oranges