home

Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarqawi

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:54:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Al Qaeda has named Abu Hamza al-Muhajer to replace al-Zarqawi. His name may also spelled Al-Muhajir. Not much seems to be known about him.

During a press conference today, Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, described the results of the autopsy performed on al-Zarqawi. He died of injuries sustained in the blast, particularly to his lungs, lived for 52 minutes afterwards, was treated by a U.S. Medic and also had injuries to his face and head.

< Sunday Night Comment Spats | Report: Pentagon Blocking Guantanamo Legal Mail >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarqawi | 55 comments (55 topical)
    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    Re: Autopsy results. They seem to coincide with what TheNewGuy wrote a few days ago. Whether the results are reflect reality is a different question. Moreover, as a matter of logic they do not exclude the witness reports of stomping and beating. 52 minutes is a long time to live with catastrophic blast injuries to your lungs.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:28:50 AM EST
    Scribe.... do not exclude the witness reports of stomping and beating. YES..by all means, let's take to heart any "witness" info over the word of our military! That's SOP here on TL. I can only hope that he was in a great deal of pain... and also, that he knew it was US forces that did it to him!

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    A web statement? How can they report the last sentence of that story as news while keeping a straight face? Where's al Qaeda's website? Who posted the announcement?

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    They've been posting web statements for years. The one posted today reportedly comes from al Qaeda Iraq which has issued previous statements.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    yes, military propaganda must always be believed over common sense and independent statements of eye-witnesses.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:13:38 AM EST
    Some can't believe our own military and media when they tell us how Zarqai died but they take an "internet" statement as truth and gospel from a terrorist orginization. When was the confrence to elect a new leader held? Was that yesterday or did they have a teleconfrence or even better did they do it online and eveyrone who blogs at AQ's site do an online poll? My theory is that Zarqai had a will and nammed his successor in it. I know of two witnesses that saw US Soldiers give the will to a masked man who immediately made a cell phone call to Al Jazeera to get the message out. Developing...

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    BB: get a clue. "does not exclude" means, in case you forgot, that "if A is true, that does not mean B must be false". In other words, the same kind of damage could have been caused by either the bomb blasts, or the witnessed beating, so finding that kind of damage is not determinative of how Z got it. Or, alternatively (and a whole different prospect), the damage from the one could have masked the damage from the other. OT - anyone: has there been any news on the Detriot ACLU v. NSA hearings? Beyond "hearing's gonna happen today"?

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    Some can't believe our own military and media when they tell us how Zarqai died but they take an "internet" statement as truth and gospel from a terrorist orginization.
    Frankly I dont believe any of them. They are all proven liars So you end up digging through the pile trying to find the proverbial pony

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    Scribe writes:
    In other words, the same kind of damage could have been caused by either the bomb blasts, or the witnessed beating,
    No, I don't believe a beating would do the same type of damage, but since I am sure you will claim that as a "belief" not fact, I ask you. Are you ready to admit that Zarqawi was running from the house??

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    And that question is paramountly important to resolve why?

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    I thought that we'd already resolved that for "beating" we were sustituting the phrase "panties on the head"? Lets hear no more talk of beatings.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    Confirmation of a new leader for the Mythological Group which is named by identification as Al-Queda of course through the American Press. No One can confirm this new leader since there really is no way to the source unless you want homeland security knocking at your door. So What we have is second hand information behind our iron curtain which is our ISP. Google "Whitelist" .

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#13)
    by Punchy on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:34:51 AM EST
    Why does anyone care who the AQ leader is? It has zero pratical value. He'll blow stuff up, then he'll be blown up, they'll anounce a new leader, and repeat the steps. And what's this "beatings" all about?

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:40:05 AM EST
    "They've been posting web statements for years. The one posted today reportedly comes from al Qaeda Iraq which has issued previous statements." Who is al Qaeda Iraq and where can I see their statements? Why would I believe a thing the press reports if they can't back it up with tangible evidence. There's no reason to believe any internet communications from anyone aren't hoaxes unless the communication originated from a verifiable website/e-mail address with a phone number that the person sending the message can be contacted at to verify that it wasn't falsified by a third party. Otherwise you're taking an anonymous poster's word that they represent someone or something without any evidence.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#15)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    so what if he was beaten? he's dead and that fact will save some lives. beyond that, who cares how he died?

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#16)
    by narius on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    so what if he was beaten? he's dead and that fact will save some lives. beyond that, who cares how he died? Plus I doubt a few kicks would make him feel any difference since he was already hurting all over his body from the blast. I bet he was happy that he was going relatively fast (what, 52 min?). I am sure he liked this, with or without the kicks, a lot more than being interrogated.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    so what if he was beaten? he's dead and that fact will save some lives. beyond that, who cares how he died?
    We don't care out of any sympathy for Zarqawi. We care out of how we view ourselves.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    Well, the wholesome old fashioned value "whatever you do to the least of these etc" has certainly died a relativly quiet, painless death hasnt it? Welcome to Planet of the Apes. Or is it the old-fashioned, faith-based Apes?

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#19)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    I bet he was happy that he was going relatively fast (what, 52 min?). I am sure he liked this, with or without the kicks, a lot more than being interrogated.
    i dont care what he liked b/c he didnt care what hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent iraqis liked.
    We don't care out of any sympathy for Zarqawi. We care out of how we view ourselves.
    Fair enough, but the claim, from what I understand, is that they took him out of the ambulance and beat him up. That doesnt make much sense to me. Why would they take him out of an ambulance to beat him up in plain sight no less, when he was already fixing to go either to the hospital or the morgue. And, if they were going to beat him up, i would assume that they would do so on the ambulance, out of sight of any standers-by. So to be honest with you I dont believe that it happened that way and to be completely honest with you I still dont care if they did beat him up because he had it coming.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#20)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    Well, the wholesome old fashioned value "whatever you do to the least of these etc" has certainly died a relativly quiet, painless death hasnt it?
    call it what you want, but i call it "that's what you get if you're a terrorist that videotapes yourself cutting people's heads off and send the tapes out worldwide". i have a feeling that the iraqis, if given the opportunity, would have done much worse than that.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#21)
    by narius on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    We don't care out of any sympathy for Zarqawi. We care out of how we view ourselves. Do we become so sensitive and PC that a few kicks to a dying terrorist would injure our self image? If that is the case, there are plenty of shrinks in the world to cure that. Better yet, just rent some movies with Arnold in it.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    peac - I am calling it what I want. Just dont hide behind the wholesome-old-fashioned-dont-burn-the flag b.s or hide behind others that hide behind it when its all about geopolitics with the gloves off. And regardless of how much bigotry and demonization is "in" in times of war, you need to be a little more specific when you talk about "the Iraqis" and what they would do to "us". As if that somehow dignifies barbarism and barbaric foreign policy.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    Do we become so sensitive and PC that a few kicks to a dying terrorist would injure our self image?
    No, Narius, it is not the kicks to the dying terrorist that gets me worried. Perhaps, as you say, he had it coming. What worries me...what agonizes me whenever I identify myself as an American...is the amount of jubilation many of my fellow Americans feel about these acts of vengeance in the name of justice.
    If that is the case, there are plenty of shrinks in the world to cure that. Better yet, just rent some movies with Arnold in it
    I am afraid you have seen one too many Arnold films to ever be cured.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    i have a feeling that the iraqis, if given the opportunity, would have done much worse than that.
    In case you forgot, the story goes that the Iraqis had loaded him into an ambulance to transport to the hospital...when the US troops arrived.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    Movies with Arnold in it. Or better yet, attend a few dog fights or get drunk and watch a few snuff films. Fruit.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#26)
    by narius on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    No, Narius, it is not the kicks to the dying terrorist that gets me worried. Perhaps, as you say, he had it coming. What worries me...what agonizes me whenever I identify myself as an American...is the amount of jubilation many of my fellow Americans feel about these acts of vengeance in the name of justice. Now now, without some jubilation, it would not be an act of vengeance, would it? The trick is to persuade yourself that society needs its vengeance. May be not for small deeds like robbery, but certainly for big deeds like beheading people. Vengeance actually is not that bad, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    May be not for small deeds like robbery, but certainly for big deeds like beheading people.
    so I assume you have no problem with people taking vengence for this

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    Jondee wrote:
    Posted by Jondee June 12, 2006 12:13 PM And that question is paramountly important to resolve why?
    Early on Scribe was claiming that Zarqawi's injuries were not consistent with someone who had been in the house, and that the approach of the F-16's would not have given him enough warning to run. i.e. The military lied. I posited that Occam's Razor dictated that he was outside the house, for reasons unknown. Squeaky later posted a NYT article that said that he was outside and was engaged in a fire fight... So my point is, Occam was right. Hope this helps.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    As I recall Jim, you're a bit of an Occam fundamentalist. And apparently Occam's now working for the RNC.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    Jondee - Didn't know Occam was working for the Repubs. Since he has been dead for hundreds of years I guess Bush can raise the dead. ;-)

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    Soccerdad. When you link to that kind of horror post a warning. I don't want to be directed to the like of it. And be careful of your motives.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    Real name is Chuck Occamstein. Used to write for the Dartmouth Review. Log Cabin guy. Used to go out with Ann before "she" had that operation.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#33)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    I am calling it what I want. Just dont hide behind the wholesome-old-fashioned-dont-burn-the flag b.s or hide behind others that hide behind it when its all about geopolitics with the gloves off.
    I realize you're taking the high road here, which is commendable, but US marines might be just a shade more emotional about capturing this guy than you are. when the guy has been targeting you and innocent civilians for a couple of years, it sometimes sort of becomes personal in a sense. I dont really buy that they beat him up but still am not that worried about it if they did.
    And regardless of how much bigotry and demonization is "in" in times of war, you need to be a little more specific when you talk about "the Iraqis" and what they would do to "us".
    first of all, i'm not talking about what iraqis would have done to us. i'm talking about what groups of them might have done to him. and not because of bigotry or racism or whatever, but because there are many one-armed or one-legged iraqis and so many that have lost loved ones thanks to an al zarqawi attack that perhaps if one of those people had found him they would probably have hung him by his earlobes or something like that.
    In case you forgot, the story goes that the Iraqis had loaded him into an ambulance to transport to the hospital...when the US troops arrived.
    and you buy that? that US marines pulled him out of the ambulance and beat him to death? does anyone see how bad the stereotype of marines is getting when people believe stories like that? you all seem to think that marines are just bloodthirsty animals who live for war and have no regard for human life. you are entitled to think that b/c so many of our men died to allow you to think that, but make sure you dont try to call our men cowards when they come back b/c you believe some bs story over his. just remember that he was over there risking his life for you and you should feel at least a little bit bad about treating him like a thug when he gets back. and in case you forgot or just didnt know...the iraqis had al zarqawi in custody twice and set him free both times because they didnt find out who he was. medics have the duty to put people into ambulances and take them to hospitals. not to find out who they are first.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    I don't want to be directed to the like of it. And be careful of your motives.
    Then dont opine about the war. You have no clue about my motives.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    you all seem to think that marines are just bloodthirsty animals who live for war and have no regard for human life. you are entitled to think that b/c so many of our men died to allow you to think that, but make sure you dont try to call our men cowards when they come back b/c you believe some bs story over his. just remember that he was over there risking his life for you and you should feel at least a little bit bad about treating him like a thug when he gets back.
    You know what Peace. That is the larges lie ever fed to any population and most people swallow it hook line and sinker. I have no anger for soldiers or marines. I see them as victims. However, I will never glorify the job that they do like you wish for me. They are doing the bloodwork for the corps and the politicains. The killing they are doing in Iraq is not for me or my freedoms. When you and your ilk realize that, then there will be chance for peace.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#36)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    The killing they are doing in Iraq is not for me or my freedoms.
    that is the biggest line of b.s. i've ever read, heard, or heard about. who do you think would be over there if those already there had not volunteered? do you think uncle sam would have just said..."we dont have enough volunteers so we might as well forget it?" do you not think that they wouldnt have sent you a letter and came and knocked on your front door to collect you for the draft? you might not agree with the war or the way in which it is fought, but when you question the FACT that their over there so that YOU DONT HAVE TO BE then you're being a fool. And once you get your marine uniform on, your life is at risk and your freedom is in the hands of your commanding officer until you are released. a marine's freedom, rights, life, and choices are now on hold until he either is killed in action or gets on that plane to come back home. most people swallow it hook line and sinker because they have sense enough to see that it's the truth. When you and your ilk realize that, then maybe their arguments might hold a little water.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#37)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:32:10 PM EST
    please excuse my grammatical errors in my last post...i had a lot to say and my rant didnt save enough time for things like their vs they're...but yall get the picture.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#38)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    he's dead and that fact will save some lives. How do you know this? Vengeance actually is not that bad, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it. See 9/11 vs Haditha. Are you ready? Squeaky later posted a NYT article that said that he was outside and was engaged in a fire fight... Looked pretty quiet on the gun camera just before impact. you might not agree with the war or the way in which it is fought, but when you question the FACT that their over there so that YOU DONT HAVE TO BE then you're being a fool. You miss the entire reason for this aggression. I don't agree with this war, they are not there in my place because I would never go there for Bush's lies, and those volunteers did not volunteer to be mercenaries in an oil war. They signed up to defend the country. The two concepts are in different galaxies.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    Squeaky later posted a NYT article that said that he was outside and was engaged in a fire fight...
    Gee wiz ppj. The article I posted and reread twice never said anything about him being outside. Nice try. BTW ppj FWIW the new reports from the supposed autopsy say that he was inside when the bomb went off.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#40)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    they are not there in my place because I would never go there for Bush's lies
    if you were drafted you'd have to or you'd be a mexican or canadian or out on the lamb somewhere else.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06122006.html"> Patrick Cockburn< makes a goof point.
    The ease with which Iraqi police and US special forces were able to reach the house after the bombing without encountering hostile fire showed that Zarqawi was never the powerful guerrilla chieftain and leader of the Iraqi resistance that Washington has claimed for over three years.
    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    oopsie. Patrick Cockburn

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    Peace Revolutionl, Lets me do a little recap for you. I said,
    In case you forgot, the story goes that the Iraqis had loaded him into an ambulance to transport to the hospital...when the US troops arrived.
    (Remember, this was in response to your claiming that if Zarqawi was beaten you would not feel bad about it, because Iraqis would have done worse to him and you had nothing but hate for the man) Which is a fact according to the US military commander in Iraq. You then called this b.s. and went on a rant about how marines protect my freedoms and I should not believe lies. Well, use your brain and forget about your honor and devotion to your brethren in the marines. I can respect that, but it is irrelevant to my point. Now, lets move on to your rant. You should understand first and foremost that I am a pacifist, and do not believe that violence will ever solve any problem. I believe it only will creat more violece in the world. I do not believe that humans are by nature violent. I believe we are a violent society that glorifies war and children from a very early age are institutionalized to believe that violence will resolve conflicts and are socialized not to care about the future effects of our just violent acts of vengeance. This is my belief and I recognize that I cannot force others to share my belief. Thus, I am also a pragmatist. I can understand the need to kill others who wish to do harm to Americans, although I do not think it will lead to an eventual peaceful world. However, I am an American first and if Americans decide on a course of war for legitimate purposes and after a debate that includes many opinions from all sectors of the public, and according to our constituion, if war is decided, I will do my part for the war effort so we can emerge as vic tors in the shortest period of time, with the fewest casualties and at a minimal cost to innocent life. However, in this case the American public was lied to. We went to war under false pretences. It was a preemptive invasion that was decided undertaken under the impreesion the Iraq possessed WMD. This was not true and many people knew in the intelligence community that it was not true despite what the right wing war monger pundits want to tell us (UN inspectors, Hans Blix, US Inspector Scott Ritter and others were very vocal about the pre--invasion prediction that WMD would not be found in Iraq). Also, we have had the incident at allegations of torture, revenge killings of civilains at haditha, cluster bombs of civilain areas, and an unacceptable amount of casualties of US soldiers. I did not ask for the US troops to invade Iraq. I don't want them there right now. We did not have an honest discussion and I believe this war is illegal. I know that US troops are in danger. I know they undertake dangerous missions. I do not think they are cowards, but they are humans in constant fear for their lives and this will take a significant psychological toll on them. The US troops are in Iraq, because of a small cabal of powerful men and corporate leaders have decided their was an economic and political advantage to be gained for these power and big money interests in the world. They are not there for our freedoms. That is a lie and you are a victim of this lie. Rant away, but this is the truth.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#44)
    by peacrevol on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    I skipped ahead of myself...I did not mean to challenge whether or not the Iraqis loaded him into the ambulance. My intention was to question the claim that US forces extracted him from the ambulance to beat him up. My bad. I should have clarified. OK to address the rest of your sermon there...I never argued that we were right to go to Iraq in the first place b/c I'm not sure what I think about that. It was a big issue for me and part of the reason I did not re-enlist. That's neither here nor there for me. I just would rather not discuss it at all. But just to refresh your memory of what was said,
    The killing they are doing in Iraq is not for me or my freedoms. When you and your ilk realize that, then there will be chance for peace. -Peaches June 12, 2006 03:41 PM
    That is the main thing that we disagree on. I dont care what you think about the legality of the war or whatever else. I want you to realize that they are over there for you and your brothers, sons, grandsons, etc. Since they're there, you dont have to be, and you dont have to dodge a draft either b/c of them and their sacrifices. Another thing that I'm not sure about is
    Also, we have had the incident at allegations of torture, revenge killings of civilains at haditha, cluster bombs of civilain areas,
    It bothers me that everyone is swalling all this hook line and sinker and not really questioning how it happened. I cant imagine revenge killings b/c some of the things we saw were pretty bad over there, but that was never even a thought in the deepest part of my mind. However, if it did happen that way, then the ones responsible should be held accountable. I find it disturbing, however, that you take the worst case scenario, one of murderous rage, and assume that is how it happened. Because what that tells me is that you are that untrusting of your marines. Maybe it did happen that way, but I find it really hard to imagine that it was vengeful murder committed by US marines. More often than not, CEMs or "cluster bombs" are used to pierce armored vehicles and to destroy roads or runways because they can take out huge sections of the concrete. They are seldom used in urban warfare unless there is a large area engulfed in a major firefight. Even then, other options are explored. Sometimes they do cause civilian casualties. It's relatively rare and it's a tragedy when it does happen. They are generally not dropped in urban settings where there is a large volume of civilian life. The biggest problem IMO with CEMs is that they dont always blow up right when you drop them. So you have people in the street later that might step on one or pick one up or run over one or whatever and be injured or killed long after it's been dropped. About 10 or 15% of the time, the bomblets dont explode on impact. Their use is a topic of debate and rightly so. They shouldnt be used near civilian neighborhoods and usually are not. They are mostly used in rural areas or on roads or minefields, etc. we do completely agree on one thing though:
    I do not think they are cowards, but they are humans in constant fear for their lives and this will take a significant psychological toll on them.
    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    I want you to realize that they are over there for you and your brothers, sons, grandsons, etc. Since they're there, you dont have to be, and you dont have to dodge a draft either b/c of them and their sacrifices.
    I can't realize something that is not true. I am a pacifist. I would do everything in power to keep my children from serving in an illegal and immoral war and that includes going to war. I pity the soldiers there. I pray for the soldiers there. But, I have nothing to thank them for, just as I cannot thank an insurgent for the killing they do, because they are in danger instead of my own family--I cqan only pray for all of them.
    I find it disturbing, however, that you take the worst case scenario, one of murderous rage, and assume that is how it happened.
    I am relying on reports from the military. It appears this was a vengeance killing. You say this is beyond the marine mentality, yet you yourself said if Zarqawi was beaten he deserved it. That reflects on the mentality of a soldier in war. That is just the way it is, and probably it is useful for your own survival in a ar to be motivated by vegeance over being frozen in fear. Acts such as these have always and will always be a part of war. These incidents have been documented in every war and whenever we go into war we know that this is going to happen.
    Because what that tells me is that you are that untrusting of your marines.
    I am untrusting of the people who send the marines to war. I have no reason to either trust or distrust marines. I don't hold marines in any higher or lower regard than any other human being. They are soldiers and trained to kill and that is what they do--kill. They kill because they are put into positions of warfare by people I distrust and hold in the lowest regard of all human beings--the war makers. Your comments on cluster bombs don't offer me any more enlightenment on them. They are one more dispicable means used to maim and kill people. As bombs they do not descriminate among who they kill and when dropped from planes or shot out of shells and missles they cannot decide between innocent and guilty. They kill and maim all who happen to be near where they land no matter the age.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    ...that includes going to war.
    going to jail

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#47)
    by peacrevol on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    yet you yourself said if Zarqawi was beaten he deserved it.
    the difference is that zarqawi wasnt innocent by any stretch of the imagination. innocent people dont deserve to be killed and should not have been. the US military is investigating haditha b/c they have a duty to punish anyone guilty of conduct unbecoming of a marine or murder if that is the case. It may have been murder, but having been there, and from my experiences, i find it hard to believe. I find it less hard to believe that these people did something to provoke these marines to commit conduct unbecoming, for example having thrown rocks at them (which happens a lot btw and marines are trained not to respond at all). or sometimes you'll have people running through the streets throwing grenades and going from building to building so that it looks like there are a lot of ppl involved. of course these things dont justify them killing these people, and i have no evidence to support that that's how it happened either. it's just a few of the things that can make it a little more confusing during war. it could be any number of things ranging from the marines being set up for propaganda to they murdered innocents. i just tend to instinctively believe closer to the former than the latter than you. and i realize you're a pacifist. you've said that already. beyond the fact that you dont have to dodge a draft or be drafted b/c the volunteer armed forces are there in your stead, they are fighting for you b/c we have not had any attacks on US soil since 2001. they dont have the money or organization to come over here. they're on the run. those in iraq, as well as obl do what they do to try to incourage others to do the same. the others that might do the same dont want to live a life on the run and dont want to have to face the US military so they dont blow up things in the US. had they not done a good job of disrupting their operations in the afghan, you might have been an unfortunate victim of a terrorist attack that was stopped b/c of the disorganization of the terrorist movement caused by actions in afghanistan and iraq. however, that being said, i understand that we went over there in the first place on the basis that there were supposed to be nuclear weapons. it turned out there were none and we didnt get to discuss as a country whether it was right to go over there b/c of the mass graves of kurds or b/c of chemical warfare used on Kuwaitis or to overthrow saddam just b/c he was a nasty guy or b/c we thought we could disrupt al queada. i dont think there were any real al queada threats in Iraq before the US went in, but i cant be sure of that. so maybe it was wrong of us to be in Iraq in the first place. maybe it wasnt b/c we helped to free a country. but military actions, especially in afghanistan, probably saved some American lives. you dont hear about that though. you hear very little about how the coalition forces through out the taliban in 2001, but it probably saved a lot of lives.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    but military actions, especially in afghanistan, probably saved some American lives. you dont hear about that though. you hear very little about how the coalition forces through out the taliban in 2001, but it probably saved a lot of lives.
    Iraq is not Afghanistan. That said, OBL is still alive and giving encouragement to radical muslims. We may have helped him accomplish his objective by fighting in Iraq. More American lives may be lost because of this decision. In addition the Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan because we have overextended our military. As well, this war will end up depleting our economy in the future as debts continue to mount. Our decision to fight a war in Iraq has not made the world safer and it also has made the future more uncertain for Americans.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    they dont have the money or organization to come over here. they're on the run.
    I am not sure they ever did, but that is another story.
    had they not done a good job of disrupting their operations in the afghan, you might have been an unfortunate victim of a terrorist attack that was stopped b/c of the disorganization of the terrorist movement caused by actions in afghanistan and iraq.
    And maybe I might have been hit by a bus. Or struck by lightening. What is it like to live your life in fear? You poor thing.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#50)
    by peacrevol on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:58:18 PM EST
    OBL is still alive and giving encouragement to radical muslims.
    but we hear from him about once every six months or so now...if that. he's still on the run and it appears that he's much less of a factor in the terrorist movement than he was in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
    We may have helped him accomplish his objective by fighting in Iraq.
    I think we may have indirectly. A good point.
    In addition the Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan because we have overextended our military.
    and we're about to send 11,000 troops back to afghanistan. but there has been military presence there the whole time putting pressure on them and keeping them on the run.
    As well, this war will end up depleting our economy in the future as debts continue to mount.
    our economy is not quite as contingent on the war. i'm sure you're referring to oil prices, but oil prices were held down to about the same level for several years and when they came back to where they were supposed to be, it seemed way too high. energy prices are higher now as a result of inflation caused by a prolonged decrease in interest rates in reaction to a falling market after 9-11-2001 and the burst of the technology bubble in the late 1990s. if anything, war will be an avenue for the US govt to spend money on taking some money out of the money supply thus helping to curb inflation slightly.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    energy prices are higher now as a result of inflation caused by a prolonged decrease in interest rates in reaction to a falling market after 9-11-2001 and the burst of the technology bubble in the late 1990s. if anything, war will be an avenue for the US govt to spend money on taking some money out of the money supply thus helping to curb inflation slightly.
    Oh Boy, I wouldn't even know where to start. Maybe here. The US Gov't is the one that prints the money.... I was tempted to laugh at you, but the economy is a difficult thing to get a grasp on. It is tempting to just throw your hands up and mutter some things about debts and oil and inflation and hope people think you know what you are talking about. But, you are right that the war is an avenue to spend money and this does stimulate the economy. Deficit spending does stimulate the economy. This was the insight from John Maynard Keynes and he used this insight to push for deficit spending to get economies out of recessions and depressions. It was a suggestion for a one time boost to the economy. When WWII came along, it provided a real time example for how this deficits do help economies. Hoever, debts are the direct result of deficit spending and over time have a increasing drag on the economy. Oil prices were never held down. The Saudis have a strategic advantage in the world oil markets and they influenced prices through the amount of oil they decided to put on the market. This influences seems to be waning as we move closer toward peak production. Oil is an important part of the economy, but it is only one reason to be concerned about the fragile nature Our American economy is in right now. Debt is our number one concern, both private and public.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    and we're about to send 11,000 troops back to afghanistan. but there has been military presence there the whole time putting pressure on them and keeping them on the run.
    We control less territory in afghanistan than we did 2 years ago.
    our economy is not quite as contingent on the war.
    Do you really think 5.8 BILLION dollars a month going to waste doesn't affect our economy in a major way?
    if anything, war will be an avenue for the US govt to spend money on taking some money out of the money supply thus helping to curb inflation slightly.
    That is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen written here ... and the most callous.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#53)
    by peacrevol on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:51:34 AM EST
    That is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen written here ... and the most callous.
    you know it's really great that you offer such a compelling rebuttal. i dont agree w/ peaches on a lot of things and he doesnt agree w/ me but he offers his opinion. do you have one? or do you just like to call names to feel superior. if you have an opinion, please, share, we'll all be glad to hear. if not...shut up.
    Do you really think 5.8 BILLION dollars a month going to waste doesn't affect our economy in a major way?
    of course it is...but not as much as it might seem that it should. inflation is caused by there being too much money in the economy. that's why the fed raises interest rates, to curb inflation by taking money out of the economy. when you have something else to spend money on, it takes money out of the economy and interest rates dont have to be quite as high. that will be one of the major affects(effects whatever, my english teacher was not that good) that war will have on the economy
    Hoever, debts are the direct result of deficit spending and over time have a increasing drag on the economy.
    this is very true...but it's hard to predict real long term effects on the economy b/c it is always changing and the global market never stops. theoretically, it's going to be a negative effect, but as things change in the US and global economy, it probably will come out in the wash. i dont have any figures, but i wonder what the growth of the national deficit over the past 80ish years has been compared to the average inflation rate. would be an interesting study, but i would think it would be near to the same. if so, it suggests to me what economics seems to point towards and that is that an equilibrium will be reached and it'll all come out in the wash...sort of.
    Oil prices were never held down.
    not held down but stayed relatively level until about 2000 or so. the force that kept them there is not important to the economy, only the price...b/c as the economy grew, and people spent less money on oil as a percentage of their income, they got used to having more disposable income. then when oil prices went up to about the same level as a percentage of people's income, everybody thinks prices are way too high. and they probably are a little too high, but i dont think it's anything to be all that upset about. I once had an economics professor that said the economy is like a rubber band, if it gets streatched too far one way, when it snaps back, it does so at nearly an equal force in the opposite direction. if it's only streatched a little, the reaction is usually smaller in the other direction. i think he's right.
    Oil is an important part of the economy, but it is only one reason to be concerned about the fragile nature Our American economy is in right now.
    but you cant just look at one part of the economy...you have to look at the whole picture. oil prices can indicate inflation b/c as they are on the rise, prices of goods are on the rise b/c of higher costs of production due to high energy costs. if the prices go up, the amount of income demanded by the public will have to go up so that ppl can afford to live. when that happens there will be more money in the economy and it'll start to even out.
    energy prices are higher now as a result of inflation caused by a prolonged decrease in interest rates in reaction to a falling market after 9-11-2001 and the burst of the technology bubble in the late 1990s.
    you know on second thought and second read, i wonder if i had a brain fart. i dont remember my though process when i wrote that, but...inflation does not cause energy prices to rise. the inflation situation we have now was influenced most by the tech bubble bust and the 9-11 tragedy, but i dont know what i was thinking about why that would have anything to do w/ rising energy costs...let me ponder and try to remember why i thought that, but for now i'm conceding that argument, chalked up as a possible brain fart.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:22:12 AM EST
    Peace, I don't want to pull rank here, but your post is too confused to comment on all the mistakes in your thinking. You haqve stated some thigs correctly, but your overall take on the economy needs some rethinking. As I said before, the economy is a beast that is very difficult to get your mind wrapped around. However, it is important that we have a basic understanding, so we can have tyhe foundation for what drives world politics. I don't have time to give you the basic economy lecture I used to start my courses with when I was in grad school to undergraduates, but I will say something about inflation, because this is the bugaboo that you seem to be stumbling upon as you try and understand what is going on in the world economy. Inflation helps the economy grow. It is the grease that keeps everything moving. The average American should have nothing to worry about in regards to inflation. YUes, things go up in price and this is the most noticed part of the econoy that we can see. However, in times of inflation the economy is growing, so we have jobs and everyone is happy, at least according to the economic view of things (vs the psychological of spiritual view). The fed controls inflation by buying and selling bonds. When they buy bonds, money is injected into the economy. This increases the Money supply and lowers interest rates. When the fed is buying bonds the investors on Wall street get the signal that all is good and start making investments with the hope that these investments will make good. When the Fed sells bonds, they take money out of the economy and this lowers inflation and raises interest rates. When the fed does this investors get very nervous and the economy grinds to a halt. Now, debts (both public and private) have a inflationary effect on the economy. THis is difficult to exlain and would take too much space, but the short explanation has to do with expectations and the value of the dollar and what this means for the holders of bonds. When investors buy bonds they earn a rate of interest as a return on their investment. Inflations erodes the value of this return. Banks own most of the bonds. The Fed is an instituion that is set up to protect banks. The Fed is a quasi-public institution, that is basically run by banks. It has a concern for keeping the economy moving a nd growing, but ultimately it will care mlore about inflation that the economic growth rate to protect their investments. This is why the Fed always is watching markets with an eye on inflationary pressures in the economy. When they see these pressures they start selling more bonds and decresing the money supply. So, increasing gov't spending puts inflationary pressures on the economy whenever it is financed through debt. This is a basic economic fundamental that you are failing to grasp and it taints your view of how the economy works. Gov't spending also helps the economy to grow as a result of this inflationary effect. You are correct that the economy always seeks equilibrium and this is why we should be concerned for the future of our pecuniary economy. 70 years of deficit spending has managed to increase the US Public debt to almost 8 and one half trillion dollars. This number is so huge that we cannot really grasp its importance. It is a lot of interest devoted to the annual budget and this interest grows every years, which is another drag on the economy. This debt cannot sustainaably grow towards infinity. Eventually the chickens will come home to roost and it has to be paid either responsibly through decreases in spending or irresponsibly with an eroded dollar (Inflation). THat's just the facts, jack.

    Re: Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarq (none / 0) (#55)
    by peacrevol on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:44:28 AM EST
    so now we've established who the economist is...
    The fed controls inflation by buying and selling bonds. When they buy bonds, money is injected into the economy. This increases the Money supply and lowers interest rates.
    OH YEAH...i forgot about that...indirect controlling of interest rates by the fed through T-bills...you'll have to excuse me, it's been a while since my two econ courses. i think that was where my thought process got a little screwed up. so that makes you right about
    So, increasing gov't spending puts inflationary pressures on the economy whenever it is financed through debt.
    i'm not too big to admit when i'm not quite as right as someone else :)

    Abu Hamza al-Muhajer Named to Replace al-Zarqawi | 55 comments (55 topical)