Zarqawi Dead

[flickn]

Like Bush said, it's not over yet. He's right, that was only one man. Terrorists gonna be more pissed now and killings will sure continue like usual.

oh exactly ...but the american military will be ready to act !!

[dmegametal#1]

according to cnn.com...more retribution to come..more bombing,more kidnapping,more killings will be on top of the insurgent's agenda following to the news of Abu's death...Wolf Blitzer's report

[flickn]

according to cnn.com...more retribution to come..more bombing,more kidnapping,more killings will be on top of the insurgent's agenda following to the news of Abu's death...Wolf Blitzer's report

fuck wolf blitzer, that bitch should report more on the good stuff that goes on in IRAQ, sorry bastard wouldnt get his ratings either, all of a sudden blitzer can see the future. why does he work for cnn then..wanna be fortune teller

[Thierry]

This is a good catch, but everyone who supports Bush with this Iraq invasion is quite stupid.

[OutlawTorn81]

This is a good catch, but everyone who supports Bush with this Iraq invasion is quite stupid.

By what criteria?

If you think bringing democracy to a region that desperately needs it in order to make the transition from societies predicated on fear and oppression to free societies that respect the rights of women, the rule of law, and religious minorities is a bad idea, I'd love to see you justify it.

[OutlawTorn81]

And with that you demonstrate a complete lack of moral clarity, something far too prevalent throughout the world today.

i do not lack moral clarity.

what bush is doing is just as bad as bin laden and even hitler. I would class all three the same!

Bush is directly responsible for the liberation of 45 million people.

bin Laden has killed thousands of innocent civilians and his stated agenda is to kill four million Americans.

Hitler is directly responsible for deaths of countless millions of people.

If you truly believe that there is a moral equivalency between the first one and the last two you do not have moral clarity. If you truly believe that bringing democracy to the Middle East is as morally depraved as attempting to subject that region to tyranny and systemically deny women any rights and freedoms, and kill any person who objects to bin Laden's methods or message, you lack moral clarity. If you believe that bringing democracy to the Middle East is the same as attempting to conquest all of Europe and install a regime that denies personal freedoms, denies Jews the basic right to life, and kills people at random, you lack moral clarity.

[Leighton]

How can Osama be responsible for thousands of indirect deaths by planning for 4 plane hyjacks and a few car bomb attacks... yet Bush is immune from public prosecution cause he planned wholesale invasions of entire nations indirectly killing tens of thousands. Bizarro logic there.

Anyway...

You do realise conservative politics put Saddam in power in Iraq in the first place, don't you? Guess who's intelligence and money he used to stockpile his country with.

Of course, after the war with Iran, Saddam became expendable and the West turned on him. That's hype.

The West ignored his reason for invading Kuwait (they tapped Iraqi oil fields) so they could get their nemises after communism fell. That's hype.

The West ravaged the entire country for a decade with blockades just so they could roll the nation in a month. That was all hype. And what was the reason for invasion again? Don't even try to deny you weren't fooled by the hype.

When Saddam was caught, Zarqawi became the new hype factor for your press and Government and you can bet your bottom dollar he was killed on queue to improve relations with Iraq after the last week's Haditha massacre revelations.
Convenient to be sure. All positive spins, hype. Guess who's claimed the $25mill reward for his death? Yup, insurgents.

There'll be another Zarqawi. You'll fall for it again. You'll learn nothing. You'll feel better that you have someone to "cheer" against and your press will do the Government's job in distracting you. Americans come out to voice their opinions on gay people getting married when it has nothing to do with them, yet they don't think twice about pissing away trillions on this Iraq debacle that had nothing to do with Osama at all. There's now more troops in Afghanistan now, than there was 4 years ago. Imagine if this number was at Tora Bora when Osama was there. Imagine if the 180000 troops now in Iraq were at Tora Bora! That's how fucked up the American logic is. There's more troops 'liberating' Iraq then there was Afghanistan and the Taliban there loved terrorists while Saddam wouldn't stand for it.

It's sad that so many are easily glossed over with hype and simply don't take notice of what got you in the shit in the first place. You cheer this shit on like it was Monday night football cause it's shoved down your throat on TV. You even admit it. You live for these guys cause it gives your nation the focus of not worrying about domestic issues that actually effect you. Gay marriage seems to get people's blood boiled in the US when the private lives of other's don't affect you. I'd be a little more concerned that my country owed China hundreds of billions in your budget deficet. A bill that'll take generations to overcome. Good thing you're all fond of the Chinese.

Bush has not brought liberation to Iraq. He's brought a full-blown civil war to them. 1000 civilian deaths in Baghdad alone last month. That total is nothing on what Saddam did. Of course the US says Iraq has been on the "brink" of civil war for years now, but what else do you call 2 political/religious groups killing the fuck out of each other on the same soil? It's civil war. You just don't want to call it that until the press gives you the OK.

Shit, even the kurds who were supposed to be the big ole reason to rid Iraq of Saddam are now considered terrorists cause they bomb Turkish targets. Fancy that, Saddam was killing people now considered terrorists and you didn't cheer that... cause your press told you to hate him for that. You're easily led.

The ultimate goal of this occupation is to create 3 seperate states (religiously based) and have them bicker at each other for as long as the US can milk it. America won't attack Iran cause if they face defeat to home-made bombs in Iraq, then they'll have no chance of winning even public support against a progressive nation like Iran. In fact, the Iran sidetrack is diversion itself... hype.

[Leighton]

I know you want to use him for your own arguement, Flickn, but this statement from Nick Berg's father says it all:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2053071

"I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq," Berg said in a combative television interview with the U.S. Fox News network. "I think George Bush is.

"George Bush is the one that invaded this country, George Bush is the one that destabilized it so that Zarqawi could get in, so that Zarqawi had a need to get in, to defend his region of the country from American invaders."

[dmegametal#1]

I know you want to use him for your own arguement, Flickn, but this statement from Nick Berg's father says it all:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2053071

"I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq," Berg said in a combative television interview with the U.S. Fox News network. "I think George Bush is.

"George Bush is the one that invaded this country, George Bush is the one that destabilized it so that Zarqawi could get in, so that Zarqawi had a need to get in, to defend his region of the country from American invaders."

or even the cnn interview with berg's dad too!!!

O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading, which would say at some point, Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK -- that they'll be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of he was turned in, for example, we believe by his own No. 2, No. 3 leadership in his ranks.

And, that's actually them saying we do not want this kind of violence in our country. Experts whom we've spoken to this morning have said this is a critical moment where Iraqis need to figure out which direction the country is going to go. That would be an alternate reading to the scenario you're pointing to. (Watch how Iraqi leaders cheered after learning about al-Zarqawi's death -- 4:31)

BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...

BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.

BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.

I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.

Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.

Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.

Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

[Danallica]

The main problem i see with the war in Iraq is that is has, as megaemetal said, further fuelled terrorist groups. The fact that Saddam is gone has gotten rid of one of Irans biggest threat and developed a big threat to the world over which is bin laided

Good that they killed the guy and didnt put him on trial imo though

And Flick, we certainly are under no illusion that becuase we are an island that we arent proned to a terrorist attack, bout a year ago a potential terrorist attack was prevented here