Naturally, from a justice point of view, I’m as pleased as anyone else that this brutal creature who has killed so many innocent people is gone. However, I’m moved to ask two things:
1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren’t the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn’t attacked?
2) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I could swear the Pentagon just got done explaining why outtakes from his recruitment video showed that, militarily, the guy didn’t know his ášš from his elbow. So should we be worried that, if an incompetent yutz was able to give us this much trouble, whoever replaces him might be even worse?
PAD
• 
Yeah, it’s pretty much as I said it would be months before the invasion — once President Trifecta pulled the trigger, a lot of people on all sides would die who wouldn’t have otherwise, and a lot of previously neutral Muslims, if not moderate, would take offense and hook up with the Bad Guys.
Wildcat
Ok, here I go, once again into the lion’s den… 🙂
1)My understanding is that Iraq was used as a terrorist haven; a place for the bad guys to go and get patched up. As well as training grounds.
2)Any incompetent yutz can stick a bomb up their butt and blow people up. Zarqawi seemed to know how to use a sword to decapitate innocents. Just because he couldn’t operate a semi-auto weapon doesn’t mean he wasn’t a mean ol’ cuss that could strike fear into people by his actions.
The video of a Zarqawi that can’t operate a gun? That’s about embarrasing the idiot. Degrading his character in front of his followers. Propaganda.
We say propaganda, it’s about a video of a dimwitted Zarqawi. al-Qaeda says propaganda, it’s about cutting off people’s heads and generally anything that gets the US media machine to report bad things about Iraq. (Which is about all the MSM does anyway.)
RLR
1) The other side of the argument would be that if we hadn’t gone in, those people may have been killed by Saddam at some point. Of course, I don’t agree with this argument, so I’m really just playing devil’s advocate…
2) He may not have had any formal military training, but he at least knew how to rally fanatics to his cause, so that alone made him a significant threat, I think.
It has been reported that one of the people killed in the bomb blast that took out Zarqawi was a pregnant woman. But that’s okay because we are the good guys and when we kill innocents in our just cause we are liberators not terrorist.
The question here is if we knew where he was and had eyes on the ground, why not go in and capture him. Did we need to use two 500 lb bombs?
I have no remorse that he is dead. But we did cause “collatoral” deaths.
Tell the families of all the people that have been killed by this guy and his people that he’s incompetent. I’m sure that will make them feel a lot better.
The thing I can’t quite figure out is the US military basically had these people isolated in some safe house, but instead of surrounding the place and maybe dropping a bunch of flash grenades in there, they had to target the house for an air attack, dropping not one 500-pound bomb that probably cost a couple of million bucks, but TWO! And they still almost didn’t kill him! I’m just wondering if sending in a couple of brigade’s worth of troops to surreound the place would have done the same job and cost the American tax payers a lot less. And if these guys decided to blow themselves up rather than be captured, it saves our people the time and money.
And has anybody noticed that Fox News coverage is peppered with their people referring to an ‘Un-safe House?’ As if that little quip wasn’t funny enough, they decided to pop it into their rotation so we got to hear that little bit of cleverness over and over, like a ten-year old who’s just discovered a dirty word and keeps repeating it t get a reaction from the grown-ups.
1I’ll not snead any tears for this man. But since violence didn’t drop off yesterday in Iraq, I doubt his death will really mater too much and he’ll be just another ralling point. All and all, he will serve Bin Laudin more in death than in life.
1)Where’s Osama?
2)Good idea, plaster pictures of Dead Bad Guy all over the media, but also let the trained hyenas at FoxNews gloat over it. It’s not like any al Qaida supporters will see it, right? It’s a strategy that was a winner after Uday and Qusay Hussein got capped. Look how peaceful Iraq is now.
3)Where’s Osama (remember him?)
4)Alternate solutions to a pair of 500lb. bombs, if the military did in fact actually have Al cornered in a “safe house”: Navy SEALS, Delta Force, borrow SAS from the Brits. Hëll, tear gas.
5)Where’s Osama? (Al Z’s boss and mentor)
6)I guess W et.al. are only pro life when the mother and child are Americans.
7)Where’s Osama? (He still sends videos. How thoughtful!)
1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren’t the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn’t attacked?
If it were only that simple.
All things considered, some of these poor souls probably would’ve still ended up victims to some other madman, whether Saddam, other terrorists, or our own soldiers, who have quite the happy trigger fingers lately.
“I’m just wondering if sending in a couple of brigade’s worth of troops to surreound the place would have done the same job and cost the American tax payers a lot less.”
-Lookouts on the ground could have givven ol Al a chance to escape.
-ZERO U.S. troops wounded or killed.
-Only the safe house destroyed, not the entire neighborhood.
-People in the house with Al were obviously working with him, so instead of calling their deaths collateral damage, maybe we should call it saving time.
-The next person that decides to become the “leader” in the insurgent movement will have to think about the footage of 2 500 pound bombs dropping down from above. That will probably be a deciding factor before applying for the job.
1) Zarqawi was setting up cells in Iraq in 2002 — a year before we invaded. He went there after getting wounded in Afghanistan.
2) As Jeff pointed out, capturing Zarqawi would have put our forces in danger. He’d repeatedly said he wouldn’t be taken alive, talking about wearing a suicide vest that he would set off to take his would-be capturers with him.
3) Two 500-lb. bombs overkill? Considering that he reportedly survived the bombing (albeit briefly), I’d have to say not.
4) The pregnant woman? Under the Geneva convention, combatants are obligated to keep themselves away from non-combatants. If they don’t, then they are responsible for any harm that befalls those civilians. If we are supposed to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then the other side should be held responsible for following it, too.
J.
> -The next person that decides to become the “leader” in the insurgent movement will have to think about the footage of 2 500 pound bombs dropping down from above. That will probably be a deciding factor before applying for the job.
You’d think it worked for Israel the way you’re going on…
I loved how all the Faux News pundits went on about falling gas prices now this happened. Don’t know about the U.S. but in Toronto, they’re up at the highest we’ve seen in a bit.
As well, is no one else concerned that one or two of the inactive terrorist cells living in North America might decide to act, given the news?
If we are supposed to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then the other side should be held responsible for following it, too.
Key words being “supposed to follow.” W. made it clear he could give a šhìŧ about the Geneva Convention, or any other international law or treaty (we won’t even mention domestic laws…) long ago.
When I heard the news that Al Zarqawi had been taken out, my first cynical thought was, “How long before this bit of good news is pounced on by the left as either bad news or non-news?”
To quote from “The American President”: “There’s never an egg timer around when you need one.”
When it comes to that video…perhaps the Arab world is getting just as much amusement out of the pictures of Bush falling off a Segway, stumbling (apparently drunkenly) as he gets on Air Force One, or walking awkwardly in that flight suit with the sock-stuffed crotch.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. Both men are responsible for death and destruction, and I won’t try to compare or rank them, but showing their stumblebum moments doesn’t matter.
Come to think of it, if you watch The All-Hitler Channel on cable, you’ll see documentary footage of Hitler greeting little girls holding edelweiss and smiling kindly. That “humanized” Der Fuhrer for his people. Does anyone think anyone else, especially the Allied troops crawling across Europe and dying all the way, would take any amusement at such films, or think that their enemies were incompetent fighters?
The problem as i see it is- most muslims are disgusted by the brutal carnage this man has inflicted, but those who believe in his cause will use his death to martyr him and all the press coverage will encourage more to join the cause.
I was unfortunate enough to view the beheading of Ken Bigley on the internet (by accident) and have been haunted by those images ever since. this was not a noble man executing an enemy of Islam but a butcher killing a defenceless old man who was only there to help innocent iraqis.
in my opinion the west f**ked up 15 years ago after the first invasion when they left saddam running the show and all it took was 911 to give bush jnr and his lapdog blair the excuse to reinvade. dont fool yourselves people, this isnt about establishing democracy in iraq its about destablising the whole middle east. syria or iran is next in this modern day crusade.
dont get me wrong saddam had to be removed but the way it happened was unjust and illegal. thats right ILLEGAL. the whole justification for the invasion was nothing more than a fabrication to appease a paranoid warmonger who wants to leave his mark in history (and get his grubby hands on the oil revenues)
i could go on about this all day but i can feel my anger bubbling so my last point is – in my opinion bush and blair should and must be held accountable and tried for war crimes. i just wonder if the average iraqi was asked would they rather have saddam in power or this shambles of a democracy being shoved down their throats
Bill
1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren’t the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn’t attacked?
Well, strictly speaking, Al Qaeda never was in Iraq.
Zarqawi was never a part of Al Qaeda proper and entered Iraq only after Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2004, he adopted the “brand name” of Al Qaeda to give his group more prestige among jihadii (which worked great for Bin Laden because now there was an “Al Qaeda” presence in Iraq fighting the infidels instead of only in Afganistan).
2) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I could swear the Pentagon just got done explaining why outtakes from his recruitment video showed that, militarily, the guy didn’t know his ášš from his elbow. So should we be worried that, if an incompetent yutz was able to give us this much trouble, whoever replaces him might be even worse?
Zarqawi became a “household name” due to US efforts to pin the insurgency on solely him (as opposed to a popular uprising). The outtake video is essentially the result of too good advertising.
Unfortunately, Zarqawi’s death will make him a matyr to jihadii and will probably rally more like-minded individuals to the cause. I’ve read some experts say that there is a good chance that another group will appear and name itself after not-very-dearly departed Zarqawi. Iraq is proving itself to be the place to kill infidels, become a matyr, and go to paradise.
When I heard the news that Al Zarqawi had been taken out, my first cynical thought was, “How long before this bit of good news is pounced on by the left as either bad news or non-news?”
To quote from “The American President”: “There’s never an egg timer around when you need one.”
I’ve yet to see anyone on the left “pounce” on it as bad or non-news. Universally, I’ve seen people and pundits on the left say that Zarqawi’s death as a positive thing. (Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a depressing thing to have to say — that the death of someone is a good thing.) However, I do notice that they also offer the caveat that this is not the magic bullet that will cure the turmoil in Iraq. And they’re right.
It is a much-needed morale booster, however, and I hope it’ll last.
The insurgency is very fractured. Bush and the media liked to portray him as the big Lex Luthor style mastermind because he was the only ‘important’ guy whose name they could pronounce.
“If we are supposed to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then the other side should be held responsible for following it, too.”
To the extent of a)treatment of civilians and b)treatment of prisoners, the US absolutely must be transparent and follow the Geneva Convention inletter and spirit. Why, you may ask?
Because the US is supposed to be the good guys. Abu Graib, Haditha, Gitmo must all be able to survive the most intense scrutiny, investigation and be above reproach. The removal of Saddam was supposed to put an end to torture and indefinite detention on vague charges.
If you say you work for angels, you cannot use the devil’s tools. The tragic events of 9/11 in no way excuse Abu Graib or shipping prisoners off to governments that consider torture SOP just so Sureshot Cheney can say America does not torture.
If memory serves, Bin Laden’s goal in causing 9/11 was to cause a rift between the West and the Islamic world, demonstrating how evil the West was and gaining more followers to his cause. After we went into Afghanistan (which was supported by virtually all of the world), we invaded Iraq, instituting regime change in a sovereign nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. And there are now far more terrorists and supporters of terrorists than there were before we invaded Iraq.
I guess when Bush said “Mission accomplished” he meant Bin Laden’s mission, not ours.
If the Soviet Union had not fallen, Bosnia would have been spared the horror of ethnic cleansing. I’m not Bush’s biggest supporter. I think he’s done more harm than good for the Country. However, getting rid of this butcher is nothing but possitive, and I’m not going to let my politics blind me to the the fantastic news that this murderer is no longer breathing.
I’ll bite. It’s a bad thing because enemies in the middle east are a lot more powerful dead than alive. We just made Zarqawi a matyr and this is only going to cause more and more people to flock to his cause. Of course, having all the major news networks plaster his dead picture everywhere is not helping matters. The other side can read this as gloating amoung other things.
Also, the way we killed him works against us. Killing a number of innocents along side him may technically be legel according to the rules of war, but it is immoral and it is only going to aid the enemy in rallying more people to their cause. In the right hands, that is an incredibly powerful recruitment tool.
“If the Soviet Union had not fallen, Bosnia would have been spared the horror of ethnic cleansing.”
Orlando, ethnic cleansing would have happened with or without the Soviet Union collapsing. Take out Milosevic and his cadre, and about 1000 years of history, it might have been prevented.
Al-Z is now a martyr to radicals. I give it less than three months for the “Al-Zarqawi Martyr’s Brigade” to strike.
This whole “Operation Iraqi Freedom” has been one screw up after another, coupled with official duplicity, propoganda and incompetence. Miscalculation, corporate and political coronyism, and a complete unwillingness on the part of W and Co. to do their homework has created the very terrorist breeding ground they claimed they were out to destroy.
BTW, where’s Osama?
“Also, the way we killed him works against us. Killing a number of innocents along side him may technically be legel according to the rules of war, but it is immoral and it is only going to aid the enemy in rallying more people to their cause.”
Jon Stewart made a brilliant observation about this the other day, wondering why it was that in the war in Iraq, innocent civilians being killed is an acknowledged inevitability, termed “collateral damage,” and that’s accepted by the government. But when it comes to stem cell research, the fetus is sacrosanct, even though the research involved could aid millions of suffering people. I have to wonder if the term “scientific research” was replaced with “war on nerve damage” whether that might suddenly garner White House support.
PAD
I’m no supporter of the war in Iraq, but let’s be honest; in EVERY war, innocent casualties are an acknowledged inevitability.
Even the dimwitted can cause massive damage. Look at what George the Lesser has done.
So, we shouldn’t go after the leaders in a war because (a) it will inflame their followers or (b) when they choose to hide behind “civilians”, they are in a time-out zone?
Um…no. Getting Al Z is a positive thing all around. His followers aren’t going to decide to all of a sudden bomb US troops and soft civilian targets because of this. They have been doing it all along! And once those followers realize that it was the Iraqi people that turned Al Z in, then they might start rethinking their chosen life path and choose something where the path is a little longer.
The people in the house with him weren’t innocents. They were providing a safe-house for the most wanted terrorist in the country. Does anyone really think that if ground troops were sent in these people wouldn’t be taking up arms and firing at the forces?
I will admit that I am glad he didn’t die in the initial bombing though. Depending on reports, the last thing he saw were either US troops looking down on him, or Iraqi troops that have been fighting against him. I’m not sure which would be a better image for him to take to his afterlife for eternity.
The question here is if we knew where he was and had eyes on the ground, why not go in and capture him. Did we need to use two 500 lb bombs?
I’m just wondering if sending in a couple of brigade’s worth of troops to surreound the place would have done the same job and cost the American tax payers a lot less.
Only if by “a lot less” you value the cost of the bombs over the lives of the troopps who would have been likely killed in the attempt. I’m not picking on you–I think you haven’t thought this through. It isn’t easy to take out a house full of heavily armed people who are fully willing to die. It would have been very possible that the place was also wired to detonate in the event of an attack, killing Zarquawi and any troops sent in the get him. The bombs were manifestly the right choice, in my opinion.
You’d think it worked for Israel the way you’re going on…
Well, Israel still exists, which is something of a miracle considering the position they are in. If I had to put money on Israel or Hamas I know which one would get my bet for future survival.
One thing I don’t get–some of the same people who are saying that the now dead Zarqawi will now be even more powerful as a martyr are the very same ones who ask “why haven’t we killed Osama?” But won’t that turn HIM into a martyr, making him even more yadda yadda yadda…? So which is it, or do you just want to reserve the right to complain no matter WHAT happens?
You can argue that every time we kill a terrorist we create 5 more. You could also argue that every time an American soldier is killed, support for the war goes up. Both are wrong, in my opionion. They don’t make sense. I don’t know that history shows much support for it.
All Osama has to do is spend his time with women and children-civilians. Then, according to many, he is untouchable. Or if we do get him, and those get killed, we are as bad as Osama Bin Laden. With that kind of philosphy we couldn’t have even thought about WWII. What we should have done, then, is not supplied the British pre-Pearl Harbor. Then when Pearl Harbor happened, perhaps Hitler wouldn’t have declared war. Or even if he did, we should have compromised then-Hitler takes Europe, Japan gets Asia, we get the Americas. We’ll negotiate later about Africa. Then we would have killed no civilians, and perhaps WWII would have ended quicker and less would have died. AFter all, Hitler’s death just made him a martyr to the Neo-Nazis of today. Either that or sent in some commandos after Hitler. Then only the core Nazis would have died. No dout Europe would have given up fascism anyway. he probably was already dead anyway for years, or he’s still alive. Hitler wouldn’t have taken his own life. Harry Truman just needed to get his poll numbers up after all. Ðámņ Truman and his 30% approval rating-histories worst president. and war criminal to boot, along with FDR. imagine dropping all those bombs on civilian cities and then the atomic bombs. Whooo. and you just know if you had cameras then, there would have been all sorts of Mai Lai/Haditha(sp) type incidents that went unrecorded and covered up by the propaganda of the government and Hollywood. FDR was just going through all his power fantasies since he was crippled. I refuse to celebrate V-E and V-J day since it might help Truman’s poll numbers.
In all seriousness, a viscious killer is dead, and that’s a good thing. There are thousands of others in variuous countries who also deserve and need to be killed. While it most likely won’t have a tremendous effect in IRaq, and temporarily there may be even some extra backlash, justice has been served. I wish he had lived a bit though so he could have been interrogated-whether he would have given up anything useful, I don’t know. But I won’t mourn his death. I hope it was quite painful, I hope it flashed through his mind that he wasted his life, and I hope there is a hëll for him to burn in for all time. and I hope many more join him there-but not Osama. I wouldn’t want the inevitable martyrdom and Osama memory brigade retaliations sure to come. Besides, Bush is just as evil as Osama. In fact, so are 51%(?) of the American people, they voted for him. I hope they all die those evil fools. There all just as bad as Osama for that. Oh, I forgot I said in all seriousness….
I hope we do get Osama soon. I can’t wait for all the “Yeah, but Bush is evil too, Osama isn’t really in control of anything anymore, well it took 5 years, why couldn’t we have sent in some commandos, it won’t make a difference because Al Quaeda is decentralized, it will make him a martyr, there will be retaliations, blah blah blah.” I can’t wait.
Somehow I am reminded of Debbie Downer
“Happy Birthday!”
“Just one more day closer to death.”
“I liked the movie, but now I will tell you the 63 things I disliked about it, rather than the good things about it.”
Killing Al-Zarqawi was necessary. I’m not happy about the civilian deaths, but sometimes they do happen in war, no matter how careful they are.
This is a serious blow against the insurgency, but I don’t think anyone is under any illusions that this is the end of it. We have a bit of a lull as an internal power struggle for leadership shakes out, but the insurgents were never one guy, symbol or no.
As for how much of Al Qaida was in Iraq before the invasion and how much of it was actively supported by Saddam’s regime, we can debate that for weeks. Since much of their pre-invasion operations were in the Kurdish region that he had little direct control over, I suspect he wasn’t giving them a lot of direct aid.
What you have to realize, though, is that “Al Qaida” has never been a strongly centralized organization and they’ve become even more decentralized since 9/11. In some ways, that’s good, because they’re less likely to be able to pull off a major operation like 9/11. On the other hand, in some ways, it makes them more dangerous. For one, it makes the individual cells more likely to go into criminal enterprises (drugs, bank robbery) for financing. For another, it means that with little communication between the celss, taking out one cell won’t yield much useful information about any of the others.
Newsweek states that (1) they didn;t consider a raid to capture him because they felt it was too dangerous for the troops and (2) the bombings killed less civilian casualties than would have been the case normally because this is one of the times he was around much fewer people.
Civilian casualties suck-the problem is, if you put them at the top of the to be avoided list, all one has to do is always travel with civilians or go to civilian areas and no one can ever take you out.
I’m sure the fact he had at least 3 close calls before and got away led in part to them choosing to dispatch him.
I wonder if the bombs will have destroyed the computer discs and papers they’ve found? Apparently they can get at least some information out of them.
Yeah, okay, you’re all kind of missing the point. It was the irony/hypocrisy of “Killing innocents in the name of war=grudgingly acceptable,” “Fetal stem cells in the name of science=completely unacceptable.”
PAD
I guess it really depends on what you think is worth it and the chance of success (lets assume you think the fetal cells are human life). Where does destruction/experimentation fall into acceptable areas, and where is it equivalent to the Nazis?
In theory, depending on your views, even say kidnapping live subjects to do terrible experiments on could be justified on the same theories if those experiments will lead to discoveries that benefit all (similar to animal testing but on humans-sacrifice the one for the many sort of thing). Most of us would say no to that, yet accept a certain amount of “collateral damage” in war. Which you have to accept if you will engage in war. Say even a war like WWII without much debate on its overall morality. To win,many relatively innocent people would have to die.
Would it be acceptable, then, to force 100,000 full grown people to be experimented on (say randomly chosen) for the sake of discoerving the effects of drugs, search for cures, etc? It would be more effective than animal testing and computer models I am sure in many circumstances, and then many millions could be helped.
Isn’t that somewhat the same thing? Why is that wrong, stem cells wrong (for sake of argument) but collateral damage right? Does it matter what the net benfit in life would be? or who would be saved? Or are there some things so terrible that we wouldn’t do no matter what? Say these 10,000 people will suffer terribly, but we will cure cancer-we know it for sure. Is it acceptable then? Does it become less acceptable as the percentage for a cure decreases?
I don’t know. I have to accept collateral damage because there are times I believe war is necessary, justified or right.
Yet, I would not allow people to be experimented on with or without their consent to the point of “torture” or death even if I knew a cure would result.
Yet I might allow the torture of some people in war if I knew for sure important info would come out of it-maybe
Stem cells? It really depends for me on what procedures are used, and the way the stem cells are gathered.
I will note Bush didn’t provide federal funds, but he did not ban the use of stem cells. and while that has had a huge impact, OI think it still is an important fact for this discussion purposes. At that time, in fact, I believe his postiiton was pretty moderate-both sides were angry at him. Obviously, as time went on, it became apparent that his mind wasn’t going to change on the issue.
The death of Zarqawi is not going to make him and his cause more popular, or cause an increase in violence. The bad news is that this is partly because the war is in such a bad shape, and the image of the US is in such a low that Zarqawi’s death is not going to make it worse. The good news is that Zarqawi was not that popular even in the Arab and Muslim world, so not many tears are shed for him, nor was he local Iraqi so he had no strong roots among the people. The better news is that the Iraqi army’s and population’s moral may improve, and maybe the local Sunnis can distance themselves from him and become more moderate. So all in all the good outweighs the bad in this case.
Bill, the targeted kililng of terrorists (as we call them here in Israel), have there pros and there cons. It is not always easy to tell when to consequences will be bad and when good. If you’ve reached a point when you’re considering using it it is probably because you did something stupid before. In this case it seems to have been the right tool. I don’t know enough about the collateral damage to say whether there was a way to avoid it, but the proper state of mind should be to try to avoid it and feel bad when it happens. The bad news is that no matter how much you tried to avoid it, and how sorry you are, as far as many Arabs/Muslims are concerned you killed the civilians deliberatly because you are a bloody murderer. Osmam Bin Lin Laden and Zarqawi on the other hand are freedom fighters.
Spiderbob. Comparisons to WWII are not recommended. There is tendancy to compare everything to WWII, and it just obfuscated the real issues. It is reasonable to assume that had that war happened today some of the things that the allies did they would not have done,and this is a good thing. It is true that wars inevitably have collateral damage. But this should only make us hesitate more about going to war, which is not to say that we should never go to war. This war, probably not the smartest decision. Why would you want to get involved in a war in the middle east if you didn’t have to is beyond me.
(I wrote something on the whole gay marriage issue, but it seems to have vanished. I wonder what happened. Well, on to the next issue).
Just to illustrate what I’ve said above, here are is what is going on here in Iasrael-Palestine. I feel glum and have a bad feeling things are going to escalate, so I thought I’d give you a taste of moral dilemmas.
We (Israel) withdrew from Gaza. But Gaza is still the same miserable place it were, surrounded by Israel, and we still control the west bank.
The Palestinians are shooting little missiles on the civilian town and villages near Gaza. Mostly to keep the flames at a certain level, and there prestige and spirits high. It has no military value. Nobody has been killed, but that’s part luck part their shity equipment. They did hit a school. Eventualy they will get better or smuggle better equpment from Egypt. I should also add that sometimes these missiles hit palestinians.
The people shooting are local gangs loosly associated with the Fatah (formerly the ruling party), and the Islamic Jihad which is associate with Iran. The Hamas (who are now in power) have maintained a unilateral cease fire, and the Palestinian President (Fatah) is opposed to the shooting. But they are not likely to stop it. In fact, the Hamas’s fighters were clamoring to return to the armed struggle and may have been involved.
The Israeli public have been pressuring the army to do something (not that much pressure is needed). So the army started shooting back. From tanks, which is not very accurate; from helicopters (more accurate, but this is a densly populated area); and by using ground forces. They killed some of the people operating these missiles, and some leaders, including a guy from the Hamas who was supposed to head a newly structured police force. Unklike Zarqawi, these people have local ties, which means people wil want to avenge their death. But this is not the good part. On friday a whole family picnicing on the beach was wiped out, except for a mother (now in an Israeli hospital I think), and two sisters. It is possible that they were hit by an Israeli shell or a Palestinian rocket.
So now the Hamas says theceasefire is over. They accuse Israel of committing crimes against humanity and started shooting missiles on the towns inside Israel, one wounded so far. For now, the Israeli press at least is still humanistic enough to spend much time saying how terrible it is that a family died, and what can we do to prevent it. Not all Israelis are as humanistic, I’m sorry to say. But if the situation escalates and suicide bombings and missile casualties increase, the Israeli public is going to care less about Palestinian civilians killed. Anyway, as far as the Arabs are concerned, Israelis kill children all the time for fun. Palestinian children have died, and I’m not always sure we did all we could to prevent it, but it is annoying to be lectured by people who cheer suicide bombers.
The Israeli extreme left have demonstrated against what the army did. As far as they are concerned, since Israel is not willing to offer peace to the Palestinians which include full withdrawl from the West Bank, than Israel is guilty. Not all Israelis on the left are sure that peace can be reached on these terms. But the current government is not offering these terms or negotiations at all. One reasonable justification is the continued terrorism. But it is also because he government is not willing to offer that much. In the past I aranged similar demonstrations (we had one with an Israeli and Palestinian coffins). But now I’m a little fed up with the extreme left’s one sided and self rightuous attitude. I’d like to demonstrate against Israel and the Palestinian actions, but that choice is not on the menu.
I have a bad feeling things are going to escalate again and I find this depressing.
I find it strange that he US considered getting involved in this kind of reality.
I find it strange that he US considered getting involved in this kind of reality.
****
Something has to and had to be done to shock that area of the world into the 21st century. I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better. It is hard to see how the area could get much worse. I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won’t be pretty.
“I guess it really depends on what you think is worth it and the chance of success (lets assume you think the fetal cells are human life). Where does destruction/experimentation fall into acceptable areas, and where is it equivalent to the Nazis?”
Okay, I’m done with you. You have violated Godwin’s Law not once, not twice, but three times in this one thread. That’s the three strike rule (established just now) and I won’t be replying to you anymore. In case you’re unfamiliar with it–from Wikipedia:
“Godwin’s Law (also Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is, in Internet culture, an adage originated in 1990 by Mike Godwin that states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]
This adage was formulated because many people compare anyone and anything they mildly dislike with Hitler. There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.”
Others can talk with you, of course, as they see fit, but I’ll be ignoring you.
PAD
Posted by: spiderrob at June 11, 2006 08:21 PM
Something has to and had to be done to shock that area of the world into the 21st century.
Easier said than done, as our experience in Iraq has shown.
I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.
They have one: Israel.
We’ve been trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, but as we’ve seen, many Arabs are willing to resist anything they perceive to be U.S. imperialism. Worse, in Iraq, Saddam’s brutal regime, as morally unacceptable as it was, had the practical effect of keeping ethnic factions at bay. Without Saddam’s brutal regime to keep control of the country, those ethnic factions that have been chomping at the bit to start killing each other now have the ability to do so.
It is hard to see how the area could get much worse.
No, it’s not: Iraq could descend deeper into civil war. Or it could be taken over by an extremist Islamic dictatorship like the one that runs Iran. Or Iran could acquire nuclear weapons and use them.
I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won’t be pretty.
Unleashing our “full military might” would be very ineffective against Al Qaeda, a group that does not fight conventionally. A full frontal military attack works best against an enemy with an army that will meet you on the battlefield in full force. An enemy that skulks in the shadows and uses civilian jets, cars, poisons, and diseases as weapons must be fought in a different way.
I could envision a scenario wherein Al Qaeda unleashes smallpox or some other highly contagious and deadly disease on us, provoking us into annihilating Afghanistan with nuclear weapons. I shudder to think what might happen if it came to that. Global armageddon, I think, is not an unlikely ending to that scenario.
Or Iran could acquire nuclear weapons and use them.
I was going to replying saying sheets of glass are easy to imagine.
Also, I’m not sure where spiderrob was going with the “shock them into the 21st century” comment.
It apparently hasn’t worked in Afghanistan or Iraq, yet some out there think we should try and stick the taser into Iran next anyways.
Posted by: Micha at June 11, 2006 08:15 PM
Just to illustrate what I’ve said above, here are is what is going on here in Iasrael-Palestine. I feel glum and have a bad feeling things are going to escalate, so I thought I’d give you a taste of moral dilemmas.
Micha, while no one is truly safe in the age of global terrorism, I am writing this post in a position of relative safety compared to the situation you in which you live. I shudder to think about the dangers that people in your region are forced to live with as a matter of course.
I sincerely and devoutly hope for your continued well-being, and for a peaceful resolution to the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 11:55 AM
1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren’t the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn’t attacked?
If it were only that simple.
All things considered, some of these poor souls probably would’ve still ended up victims to some other madman, whether Saddam, other terrorists, or our own soldiers, who have quite the happy trigger fingers lately.
–I’ll have to remember that the next time I’m walking down a dark street at night and see some waving a wad of cash; I might as well mug him and take it because if I don’t someone else probably will. And they’d probably use it to buy drugs where I’d use it to help pay rent.
Apparently Zarqawi wasn’t that important at all to the insurgency; the Pentagon started inflating his importance in Iraq before the war began and the propaganda campaign continued up through his death. The foreign fighters he controlled made up a relatively tiny fraction of the Sunni insurgency, and the greatest damage they did – getting larger groups of Sunnis and Shiites to tear at each other – has already been done. This recent profile of him in The Atlantic makes him out to be a bit of an idiot by terrorist standards, and The New Republic – generally a pretty hawkish, pro-war mag – is actually worried they’ll replace him with someone competent. I’m glad he’s dead, but I don’t have high hopes this’ll turn things around.
spiderrob:
I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.
Bill Myers
They have one: Israel.
wow. that’s a really interesting point that you raise. many people tout the idea that if we could put a democracy in the middle east it would benefit the whole region. for some reason, i had never really considered the fact that there is one there.
this is going to be an extremely thorny question. first, i want to make clear that i’m not trying to question Israel’s right to exist or anything like that.
my question is, do people think that the existence of Israel, a functioning democracy, has benefitted the region as a whole?
The problem with using Israel as the Token Democracy in the middle east is, apart from the fact that there are those who either don’t recognize it or want it obliterated, is that the Israelis aren’t the ones we’re trying to convince. It’s the Islamic countries that we look at as Bad for whatever reasons(not saying I disagree with the reasons, just saying that’s who we’re trying to change) that we want to say, “Hey, you know, things could be better for you if you weren’t treating 21st century people like they’re in the 15th. Why don’t you get the chip off your shoulder and just talk to us?” Unfortunately, a lot of this gets lost in playground one-upmanship masquerading as religious orthodoxy. “My ALlah is better than your God or Your God…” or whatever.
From Bill Myers’ post:
I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.
They have one: Israel.
Um, actually, there is another functioning democracy in the Middle East; it’s called Turkey. And its democracy has lasted despite America’s best efforts to thwart it.
Lebanon had a functioning democracy until demographics caught up with it. (Anyone interested in seeing how religious involvement in determining a government’s makeup can learn some terrifying lessons from the Lebanese experiment.)
Of course, having a democracy has never been an important feature when it could affect US foreign interests. In fact, being a Middle Eastern democracy can be a liability if the US doesn’t gain anything from it. A couple of our “allies” in the so-called war on terror have human rights’ records that are as reprehensible as Saddam’s Iraq.
Posted by: Sean at June 12, 2006 12:31 AM
The problem with using Israel as the Token Democracy in the middle east is, apart from the fact that there are those who either don’t recognize it or want it obliterated, is that the Israelis aren’t the ones we’re trying to convince. It’s the Islamic countries that we look at as Bad for whatever reasons(not saying I disagree with the reasons, just saying that’s who we’re trying to change) that we want to say, “Hey, you know, things could be better for you if you weren’t treating 21st century people like they’re in the 15th. Why don’t you get the chip off your shoulder and just talk to us?” Unfortunately, a lot of this gets lost in playground one-upmanship masquerading as religious orthodoxy. “My ALlah is better than your God or Your God…” or whatever.
Um, may I remind you of a certain US military official who actually was *promoted* after using similar language? Gen William Boykin stated in a speech before a religious group “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol”, referring to a battle against a Somali warlord in 1993. The man was promoted to Lieutenant General as well as being named as an Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence not long before this and similar comments were made public.
Despite these comments, he was not removed from his job at Defense nor did his military career suffer from this incendiary position (which was, at least on the surface, 180 degrees from his President’s stated position regarding Islam; of course, we all know what that’s worth).
Also, we should remember that Israel has a number of religious parties which are as hostile to Muslims as any Islamist party may be towards Israel. A couple of the more extreme parties have openly advocated that all Muslims be driven from Israel.
Posted by: Sean at June 12, 2006 12:31 AM
The problem with using Israel as the Token Democracy in the middle east is, apart from the fact that there are those who either don’t recognize it or want it obliterated, is that the Israelis aren’t the ones we’re trying to convince.
I’m sorry for not being more clear about my point. I was trying to highlight the fact that the message of democracy, if coming from a messenger to which the Muslim world is unlikely to listen, isn’t going to be very helpful. As you said, many Muslims don’t recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Moreover, Israel is in conflict with the Palestinians. So a democracy in Israel is not likely to rub off on other countries.
By the same token, efforts by the U.S. to instill democracy in that region will face similar challenges. Many Muslims see us as conquerors of Iraq, not liberators, which makes it kinda hard to get across a message of democracy.
Posted by: JosephW at June 12, 2006 01:58 AM
Um, actually, there is another functioning democracy in the Middle East; it’s called Turkey.
Excellent point. I hadn’t even been thinking about Turkey, which is indeed a democracy.
And you are correct that the U.S. has supported non-democratic regimes when it suited us. Yet another reason why we may not be the ideal heralds for democracy in the Middle East.
May I ask, though, why you felt the need to start out your post with “Um?” It comes across as condescending and arrogant, and I daresay it increases the chances that your points will fall on deaf ears. I know I was a little put off at first. I mean, why bother taking the time to make a good point, only to phrase it in such a way that you irritate and anger your intended audience?
I’d suggest that you try not to assume that people like me are stupid or potential adversaries, and you’ll find us more likely to listen.