Zarqawi's death

[Edella]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death is being widely reported.Apparently his death was brought about by a US air strike that was ordered after a captured Zarqawi lieutenant disclosed Zarqawi's favorite hiding places.What difference if any will this make?Opinions?

[Mercedes Benzene]

Well, I think it will make those freaking Islamic Extremists a hell-of-a-lot madder at us (U.S.) and possible Britain too...

I think they will be planning an attack on us sometime soon as revenge...

you know those terrorist types.... everything is about them and thinking that God told them to kill all the democratic people....

psssshhh.;)

[Racoon]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death is being widely reported.Apparently his death was brought about by a US air strike that was ordered after a captured Zarqawi lieutenant disclosed Zarqawi's favorite hiding places.What difference if any will this make?Opinions?

 

Well, I think initial reports are saying they found him by tracking his spiritual advisor, with the help of the Jordanians.

 

as for Mercedes comments, these guys are already plenty mad and planning attacks...It may increase their desperation however.

 

There will be a new leader ;) . but it should disrupt their flow for a while.

 

Hopefully this will encourage the Iraqi's to unite, since Zarqawi was promoting a strong Muslim division between the sects and seriously impeding the New Government..

 

Score one for the US Coalition side. :evil:

[infamous]

I think they will be planning an attack on us sometime soon as revenge...

They are making every effort with those aims in mind anyway. The more of their organizers we take out, the better.................Infy

[Mercedes Benzene]

True, true.

But this will certainly hasten any ideas for future attacks. I already feel as if an attack will occur very shortly, especially since they just captured those terrorists in Canada. I swear, it seems that every day, things get scarier and scarier.

The other day, I was sitting in my room doing homework, and all of a sudden I hear these immensly loud sounds. I mean, no joke, I thought a plane was crashing in my back yard. I ran outside and saw 3 fighter jets zooming by at low altitude. Sooo I get super freaked out. I run to the tele, turn on CNN and it was just some dumbass who flew his plane into DC resetricted airspace....

It may not have been a real threat, but I thought for sure we were going to war. :hihi:

[Qfwfq]

I don't think an air strike was necessary and I think it was a mistake.

 

Heck, they captured Saddam alive, didn't they? A criminal in jail is a far better result than one six feet under, far better effect, far better position, far better everything. Sheesh even John Wayne sometimes played as a sheriff that believed in Justice and wasn't just plain trigger-happy!

[Boerseun]

There's no point in killing any one leader - he will just create a void which will be filled soon enough by another guy. The cycle of violence and terror will not be changed, or even slowed down, by eliminating the leaders.

 

What should be done (in my personal opinion) would be an honest and objective attempt by the West to try and come to grips with the root causes, to try and understand what gave rise to this current conflict in the first place - and then treat the root cause. Chopping this snake's head off will only cause it to grow ten more.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I think they decided to use an airstrike simply because it was quick and easy... No task force had to be assembled this way. It was just open doors, bombs away! I think the U.S. wanted to get this guy off of their hands, and quick, considering he's the one responsible for so much of the contemporary world's terror.

Also, with Saddam, we more or less stumbled on to him in his hiding spot. In the case of Zarqawi, we KNEW where he was for sure, and even had him under surveillance.... and he definitely was not in a hole by himself.... he was in a concrete bunker with tens of terrorist dudes. It would have been extremely hard to get it, find him, kill his guards, and then capture him.

The alternative was 1000 pounds of explosives.... and that's what we did.

[Qfwfq]

I think they decided to use an airstrike simply because it was quick and easy...

Exactly! The easy way out!

 

And how come Saddam was so underpriviledged compared to Al Zarqawi? He really believed there were no American tanks in Baghdad? :)

 

Boerseun is right, but unfortunately that isn't what Bush wants.

[sebbysteiny]

The cycle of violence and terror will not be changed

 

-Boersoen

 

This is one of the biggest misunderstandings of Islamic terror. Islamic terror feasts off fighting infidels and 'kuffas', 'the decendants of monkeys and pigs' and the 'enemies of allah'. There is no comprimise, and the life of one Muslim is not as important as the death of many infidels. Such 'Martyrs' then become hero's and people put their pictures on posters that parents belonging to that death cult hang up to motivate their children into death. Whilst we celebrate life, they celebrate death.

 

The 'cycle of violence' is this. They kill us until we respond. Then they continue killing us but try to blame our response for their latest attrocities for propaganda purposes so they can spread their idiology of hate. They will then talk about a cycle of violence as if the blame is equal when in fact their part of this 'cycle' takes very little or no provication whatsoever.

 

Talking about a 'cycle of violence' is falling into that trap whereby we allow ourselves to put at least part of the blame on us rather than entirely on them for having possibly the most abhorent political and religous idiology on the planet.

 

Examples: September 11th. Where was the prevocation there? The attacks on the USS Cole. Again, no provocation. Then, when America attacked Afghanistan, suddenly the jihadis started calling for a 'response' as if they were not planning attacks anyway. Then after Iraq, the jihadis changed their battle cry to 'defend Iraq' by killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and destroying the infrastructure that could make their country better.

 

In Israel, the suicide bombers hit the streets shortly after Arafat rejected and walked out of the peace process calling on the Jihadis to 'do what they do'. There were no checkpoints, roadblocks, security fences, killings or even any army presence whatsoever in the West bank. Result: two suicide bombings every week. Now that those measures are in place, the jihadis now blame the 'occupation' for these attacks. Further, when these groups lose a leader, they then promise 'retaliation' as if they were not planning new and ingenious ways to kill innocent people anyway.

 

I think it's important to know why they are hitting America in the first place. This is because America is considered the leader and most powerful of the free world. If they can destroy America, the entire free world would follow. Therefore every attack they do is an attack against everybody in the free world.

 

Al Quaeda were already opperating at 100% efforts to kill Iraqis and destroy democracies. Their cries for revenge are nothing more than a sign of weakness that their organisation was hurt.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Good point.

 

Terrorists are not reasonable people. Dealing with them as though they were rational individuals is useless.

 

On the other hand, if I have 200 terrorists in a country, and I kill 200 terrorists, at the end of the day there are more than zero terrorists. So violence is not the complete answer.

 

I don't see any point in crying over Zarqawi - he's clearly a monster. I also don't see much point in rejoicing over it. Besides the fact that it's a little ghoulish to be dancing in the streets over someone getting killed in an airstrike, I don't think it makes much difference.

 

You "solve" terrorism by making life seem more attractive than death. If you give Muslim youth something to live for, it's a lot harder to convince them to die for something.

 

As for the method of Zarqawi's summary execution, I don't think it's important unless you want to needle the US. It's a tactical decision, made by tactical people. The value of having Zarqawi alive and "cooperating" is probably much higher than having him dead, but does any one seriously believe we could have captured him alive? I think that whether to bomb him or shoot him is a morally neutral decision here. It's whether you pull the trigger, not which trigger you pull that's the important part.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

As for the method of Zarqawi's summary execution, I don't think it's important unless you want to needle the US. It's a tactical decision, made by tactical people. The value of having Zarqawi alive and "cooperating" is probably much higher than having him dead, but does any one seriously believe we could have captured him alive?

 

 

On the other hand, if I have 200 terrorists in a country, and I kill 200 terrorists, at the end of the day there are more than zero terrorists. So violence is not the complete answer.

 

The Faithful stone, it seems we have much in common.

 

However, we do differ on some aspects.

 

I don't see any point in crying over Zarqawi - he's clearly a monster. I also don't see much point in rejoicing over it.

 

I think Zarqawi had skills that could not easily be replaced, particularly his skills with media manipulation which is particularly important in this war. The next best man for the 'job' will be just that: the next best man. Further, whilst footsoldiers are easy to recruit and numerous, experience educated men are in very short supply.

 

 

However, our most important difference is this:

 

You "solve" terrorism by making life seem more attractive than death. If you give Muslim youth something to live for, it's a lot harder to convince them to die for something.

 

Yes, we need to "solve" the problem, but I don't believe that trying to 'give Muslim youth something to live for' is the answer. In our country, Muslim youth already have alot to live for. Yes there are deprived Muslim youth, but there are deprived youth of every culture, yet they do not seem to turn towards fanatical terror. In fact, the most desparate and poor nations are often also the most favourable towards peace. Ethiopa during the days of starvations didn't resort to a 'global jihad'.

 

I think the problem is insead the culture of death provailant in some sects of (militant) Islam (particully Wahabism). Although the words and ideas of a the jihadis seem totally bananas to us, they are infact scarily close to views that are considered very acceptable. The culture of death, if presented in the right way, is very infectuous. This is why, contrary to popular belief, MOST SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATED MIDDLE CLASSES. One of the London bombers, for example, came from a wealthy family, had a good job and had recently been given a flashy car as a present from his dad.

 

I believe the only way to "solve" terrorism is to get moderate Islam to wage all out war with militant Islam so that the whole world, Western and moderate Islamic, can hunt those dogs into their caves and slaughter (or imprison) the lot of them.

[Edella]

...contrary to popular belief, MOST SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATED MIDDLE CLASSES.

This is interesting,can you point me to some evidence to support this?As you stated most of us have been led to believe differently.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yes, we need to "solve" the problem, but I don't believe that trying to 'give Muslim youth something to live for' is the answer. In our country, Muslim youth already have alot to live for. Yes there are deprived Muslim youth, but there are deprived youth of every culture, yet they do not seem to turn towards fanatical terror. In fact, the most desparate and poor nations are often also the most favourable towards peace.

 

I'm not talking about giving them "stuff" to live for, I'm talking about giving them a reason.

 

Or not "give" but "help to find."

 

Radical Islam (or Christianity) is just like fascism, only it's dressed up in religious clothes rather than brown shirts and jackboots.

 

Everyone needs to belong somewhere.

 

TFS

[infamous]

They are making every effort with those aims in mind anyway. The more of their organizers we take out, the better.................Infy

Lest anyone think I enjoy the death of anyone, let me say this; I take no pleasure in the suffering or the death of my fellowman. Never-the-less, as the great statesmen Lincoln one said, "I fear the conflict is forced upon us".....................Infy

[InfiniteNow]

From a marketing/propaganda standpoint... the bombing might help lessen the negative public perception of "shock and awe." It's come up a lot more lately with Neil Young's new album with a song by the same name.

 

Perception is everything. While I can't really offer evidence of this, I believe more Americans get excited over morbid results from a big bomb than over results from careful planning and goal oriented behavior, like capture.

[sebbysteiny]

contrary to popular belief, MOST SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATED MIDDLE CLASSES.

 

- Me

 

This is interesting,can you point me to some evidence to support this?As you stated most of us have been led to believe differently.

-Edella

 

I spent about 40 mins trying to find the best online source. I found a few good ones from reliable sources. Particularly, Wikopedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

 

But the best one I found was from Scientific America because it gave real scientific data from a reputable scientific source.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0006A854-E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104&colID=13

 

Which ever source you like, it is clear that the motivations for terror are very complicated and have nothing to do with desperation or poverty or 'disillusioned' youth. I think this debate needs to be had if we are to find a genuine solution to any of the worlds problems involving Islamic terror.

 

Radical Islam (or Christianity) is just like fascism, only it's dressed up in religious clothes rather than brown shirts and jackboots.

 

Everyone needs to belong somewhere.

 

-The faithful stone

 

Your are quite right by saying that Islamic terror is like facism. It isn't a people or even a class that we are fighting, it's an ideology that can infect any one person just as much as any other. Even right wing Jewish settlers have succombed to the culture of death from Islamic terror. In that sense, it is identical to nazism so the solution is also identical.

 

We must disgrace Islamic terror as an ideology in all comunities by re-educating such communities with a chance of succumbing to it, especially the moderate Muslim ones. However, with Nazism, there was essentially one state that was fully occupied by the West (and Soviet Union) so re-education was comparitively easy. Nevertheless even now, there is a comparitivly large fascist minority in Germany but it is, too small and too disgraced to be a real threat. However, Re-educating almost the entire Islamic world is a much tougher problem.