Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.

[Blotan Hunka]

I cant seem to generate a tear over a guy who chopped the head of of Mr. Pearl. A non-combatant. This guy was obviously a "combatant" operating in a theater of war we are involved in. High fives all around. Michael can send a card if he feels so inclined.

 

[jazkiljok]

What I find sort of funny (and by funny, I mean really stupid) is that we dropped two bomb on the guy. Am I crazy or does that mean that we really wanted him dead? So now we find out that the bombs didn't kill him right away. So now we need to look like we were trying to save him. But wait, there is the possibility that instead of helping him (the man we tried to blow up with big bombs) our soldiers might have beaten him to death. I am pretty certain that dead is dead. Why should it matter how it happened? I'm not saying that they did, but if it did go down that way, what difference does it make. I believe that the two bombs dropped on his home gave the message that we wanted him dead.

yeah- i like the part about putting the guy on a stretcher too... the west is too civilized to admit that killing is what war's are all about. western military forces are always apologizing in some way for doing what they train to do. the proper treatment of zarqawi at that point would have been a bullit to his skull and call it a day-- but who wants to look like a cold blooded killer? on the other hand had they indiscriminately sprayed automatic fire into the home cause they weren't sure that they got him, heck that's ok (see Uday and Quasay on that)... so dropped bombs from the sky, launched sea to surface air missles, tanks, etc... that killing of the enemy (and anyone else in the wrong place) is legit. walk up, put a bullit in the squirming rat's head... well, bad.

war is and always be a steady stream of sick and amusing contradictions. joe heller explained that to us years ago.

the moral questions that folks ask here, have no concrete answers. for the men and women who have to fight wars and operate in those contradictions- it's all about what you can live with in the end.

 

[Don Roley]

the proper treatment of zarqawi at that point would have been a bullit to his skull and call it a day-- but who wants to look like a cold blooded killer?

We don't do that. We will kill when it looks like the best choice in a bad situation- and war is one long series of bad situations.

But if someone is helpless, we take them prisoner. That is just the way we work. And later on, we may hang them if we find they deserve it, but that option has to be thought out in a calm, cold manner.

Even if you do not think the guy deserves to live, it is in our best interests to try to get him alive in order to try to get some information out of him. There may have been things he could have told us that could have saved innocent lives.

But when you deal with guys that keep suicide explosive vests around, you have to be very careful. That is just the way things work.

 

[michaeledward]

however, you will find very few people within our realm of reality, whether it be on this forum or elsewhere, that feel that al-zarqawi's death is tragic.

I will direct you to the statements of Mr. Michael Berg on CNN's Soledad O'Brien's news show.

I guess I need to leave this thread at this point. I have had several moderators indicate that my questions are inappropriate to this discussion.

This forum is for the serious discussion of non-martial arts topics including world events, social and political issues, or other items not covered in the other forums.

Please keep thread drift to a minimum, and focus on the main ideas of the topic. If you find yourself drifting off, please start a new thread to focus on it.

This forum is for the more serious/focused discussions. Please keep the discussions to a friendly level. We understand that some topics will get heated at times. Lets keep it professional, and avoid any personal insults or similar activites out of those debates.

Thank you.

 

[Don Roley]

If we can actually talk about the matter of al-Zarqawi, then the following might be of interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060609173218

It looks like the military is taking advantage of what they got from the attack and are not letting the cockroaches flee into the darkness.

 

[jazkiljok]

We don't do that. We will kill when it looks like the best choice in a bad situation- and war is one long series of bad situations.

But if someone is helpless, we take them prisoner. That is just the way we work. And later on, we may hang them if we find they deserve it, but that option has to be thought out in a calm, cold manner.

Even if you do not think the guy deserves to live, it is in our best interests to try to get him alive in order to try to get some information out of him. There may have been things he could have told us that could have saved innocent lives.

But when you deal with guys that keep suicide explosive vests around, you have to be very careful. That is just the way things work.

you are writing as if these guys are cops. they are not cops. the kill in war because it's THE SITUATION. it's called war. you kill the enemy.

Zarqawi was deemed more important dead than alive when they started blowing up buildings they thought he was hiding in.

if they wanted him for intelligence gathering they would have had troops in the ready to raid the house-- remember they were tracking the guy, they had inside info, some one told these guys which house he was in. they were also 100 per cent sure of the target. that's why they bombed it.

notice how they RAIDED all the other suspects for intelligence gathering instead of blowing the buildings to pieces?

so again IN CONTEXT the logical thing to do is to walk up-- put a bullit in the head of the guy. move out. mission successful. is it what we do do? no. and your reasons for that are mostly why-- but also because we suffer the contradictions that come with our western mentality that demand we be morally and ethically superior to our enemies. our way of life is what we're protecting when we go to war. we don't want to be feel like or be seen as cold blooded killers, when in fact that is what soldiers are trained to be.

uh, what exactly is the topic? seems the post was simply stating a fact about zarqawi being killed--- any tangent surrounding his death seems good for discussion.

best to all.

 

[Kensai]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see tens of thousands of Muslims "invading" mainland USA. "Our way of life"? We defended that by attacking a country that didn't stand a cats chance in hell of defending itself? When Hussein and Bin Laden had been on record stating that they hated each other, there was no tentative real link between the two? When Hussein was about as Muslim as I am? Islam is not a new "Commie threat" that you can have a new cat and mouse war with. This isn't another "yeehaaaoughww ride 'em cowboy" conflict here!

I have no problem with this guy having been taken out, but there is a wider issue/context that is at play here, and I'm not sure a great deal of American audiences are aware of that. CNN is NOT the only view of the world. Everything in life has some form of causal start point, 9-11 happened for a reason, the Iraq war happened as a consequence of that. America under Clinton of all people supposedly passed a law that gave US agents acting in foreign countries infallibility from foreign laws, how dare they? Who ON EARTH is America to decide such issues for everyone else? That is part of the issue here. Britain had the same attitude 100 years ago, we had the Black hole of Calcutta, you had 9-11. America gives a lot of foreign aid to countries in time of need. So? Are they the only one? America takes in a lot of refugees from war torn parts of the world. So? Are they the only one to do that? The world does not owe America anything. When I was in Iraq 3 years ago, I over heard some US marines saying that "they wouldn't stop until there was a Mc D's on every street corner in Baghdad..." "And that" I thought to myself, "is why you're in this bloody mess in the first place". I love individual Americans. I find you to be articulate, hard working, well reasoned. But you do have this view of the world that it somehow "owes you", that "American is best", that "CNN tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Until you start questioning your political leadership, and stop believing everything you hear in the press, and your huuuuge corporations meddling in foreign/governmental affairs, then 95+% of Earths population that isn't American will continue to have a mild dislike/mistrust/irritation of all things American. A crying shame. And Islam will continue to be a thorn in the side of the US.

Zaqawi is dead, good. There are however, wider issues than him being dead, or why he's dead. Wake up and smell it guys. This isn't a war to be won by killing one guy, Zaqawi, Bin Laden, Hussein whoever, this is about recognising what's really at play here, and it has NOTHING whatsover to do with defending one's "way of life".

 

[Marginal]

I cant seem to generate a tear over a guy who chopped the head of of Mr. Pearl. A non-combatant. This guy was obviously a "combatant" operating in a theater of war we are involved in. High fives all around. Michael can send a card if he feels so inclined.

Mr. Pearl Sr. would be more likely to do so given his comments shortly after the bombing.

 

[Don Roley]

you are writing as if these guys are cops. they are not cops. the kill in war because it's THE SITUATION. it's called war. you kill the enemy.

Zarqawi was deemed more important dead than alive when they started blowing up buildings they thought he was hiding in.

You obviously have never been in the military or know much about it.

American soldiers do not kill helpless people in cold blood if they can.

The eliminate threats and degrade the enemy's ability to wage war. And this means human ability as well. Snipers have been part of warfare since rifle's were invented, targeting leaders. Because taking out a leader can be as effective as taking out an entire unit sometimes. In WWII the SAS tried to kill Rommel and the US did intercept a radio transmission and sent in a few planes to take out Admiral Yamamoto.

But when given the chance, any army will take prisoners rather than kill. Unlike police, they won't risk a lot to do so.

In this case, Al-zarqawi might have been alerted by troop movements and gotten away. And he might have fought to the death and set off a bomb that would have taken out a lot of Americans with him. That is the type of things they do. And so, in this case, it looks like the best way of making sure the target was eliminated was to send in bombs. But once he was on a stretcher, he was eliminated as a threat to the US and bacame a potential prisoner. So we tried to save his life, because that is what we do.

Sending the bombs in was the best, most effective way of eliminating the target under the initial circumstances. When there was a better way to take him alive, we tried to take it.

 

[shesulsa]

Second Moderator warning:

This thread will return to the original topic of conversation or it will be closed.

Please also note that ANYONE can report posts to the moderating staff if discussions veer off topic.

Thank you,

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator

 

[Don Roley]

Some facts I read in the International Herald Tribune- which I left at work.

This was not a carefully planned operation. Al-Zarqawi, like many in his situation, changed safe houses very frequently and the military basically had word that he was where he was right then with no knowledge of how long. So the strike went off as soon as the word came in.

There was no American forces within reasonable range. In these situations, you want to go in with a lot of people to secure the area and avoid another Blackhawk Down situation.

There was a jet with two 500 pound bombs in the air on patrol and was able to get there at supersonic speeds.

That was why bombs were dropped instead of ground troops trying to capture him.

Initial reports said there was a child killed. Later reports did not mention it. Today's IHT confirmed that there was a girl about 5 or 6 killed. There is speculation that it may have been al-Zarqawi's daughter. But other speculation is that he survived the initial blast because he hopped out a window and fled as soon as he heard the plane. If both stories are true, that means that he abandoned his child to try to save himself. Again, why he survived for a little while and who the girl is is merely specualtion at this point.

 

[HKphooey]

Some facts I read in the International Herald Tribune- which I left at work.

This was not a carefully planned operation. Al-Zarqawi, like many in his situation, changed safe houses very frequently and the military basically had word that he was where he was right then with no knowledge of how long. So the strike went off as soon as the word came in.

There was no American forces within reasonable range. In these situations, you want to go in with a lot of people to secure the area and avoid another Blackhawk Down situation.

There was a jet with two 500 pound bombs in the air on patrol and was able to get there at supersonic speeds.

That was why bombs were dropped instead of ground troops trying to capture him.

Initial reports said there was a child killed. Later reports did not mention it. Today's IHT confirmed that there was a girl about 5 or 6 killed. There is speculation that it may have been al-Zarqawi's daughter. But other speculation is that he survived the initial blast because he hopped out a window and fled as soon as he heard the plane. If both stories are true, that means that he abandoned his child to try to save himself. Again, why he survived for a little while and who the girl is is merely specualtion at this point.

Dropping two 500 lb bombs with precision, with only limited non-hostile deaths, is very planned. TF 145 (AKA TF 77) had been following a lead for weeks. The reason they chose to go the bombing route was to insure al-Zarqawi's capture or death. He had escaped on other occassions and they did not want to risk that situation again. One of the times he had escaped do to the fact the restraints on the soldiers were too tight (rules of engagement). al-Zarqawi ran a road block and soldiers were told not to fire upon the vehicle.

But as you did mention, this was also the safest route. Why put more soldiers in harm's way when you do not have to do so.

The soldiers of TF 145 did their job, and did it well!

 

[Don Roley]

Al-Zaraqawi arrives in heaven.

There he is greeted by George Washington, who proceeded to slap him across the face and yell at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached and punched Al-Zaraqawi in the nose and shouted,"You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison entered, kicked Al-Zaraqawi in the balls and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson came in and proceeded to beat Al-Zaraqawi many times with along cane and said, "It was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to pen the Declaration of Independence!".

These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans came in and unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist leader.

As Al-Zaraqawi lay bleeding and writhing in unbearable pain an Angel appeared. Al-Zaraqawi wept in pain and said to the Angel, "This is not what you promised me."

The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven. What did you think I said?

 

[Don Roley]

Looks like they used the info found after al-zarqawi was taken out to good use.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_raids

 

[mrhnau]

Looks like they used the info found after al-zarqawi was taken out to good use.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_raids

Good thing I've love to see al-quieda a thing of the past. As people have stated in the past, this may have been a good first step.

 

[michaeledward]

I didn't really want to start a new thread on this ... but a Taliban commander has been killed by a United States Airstrike in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Interesting, the news report is not reporting this Taliban leader as the 'Number Two' man. I suppose that bell has been rung too many times.

Osmani, regarded as one of three top associates of Omar, is the highest-ranking Taliban leader the coalition has claimed to have killed or captured since U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime in late 2001 for hosting bin Laden.

I still think there are some serious questions that need be reviewed about the United States Military assassinating people by airstrike in a sovereign nation. And I need to wonder about whether this leader could have been captured and charged with offenses. If not, what makes this assassination legal?

 

[Don Roley]

I still think there are some serious questions that need be reviewed about the United States Military assassinating people by airstrike in a sovereign nation. And I need to wonder about whether this leader could have been captured and charged with offenses. If not, what makes this assassination legal?

Is the guy an enemy soldier? When you find enemy soldiers, the military generally tries to kill them. That just seems natural to me.

And Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and the government wants us to take out the Taliban in that nation. What is the point about raising that issue?

And I am sure the US would have loved to have gotten this guy alive if they could. But how many soldiers would probably have died in an attempt that only had a slim chance of getting him before he escaped.

Do you have any problem with the Americans targetting Admiral Yamato during WWII? How about the attempt on Rommel's life by the SAS in the same war? Or the way snipers take out enemy generals?

 

[jazkiljok]

I didn't really want to start a new thread on this ... but a Taliban commander has been killed by a United States Airstrike in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Interesting, the news report is not reporting this Taliban leader as the 'Number Two' man. I suppose that bell has been rung too many times.



I still think there are some serious questions that need be reviewed about the United States Military assassinating people by airstrike in a sovereign nation. And I need to wonder about whether this leader could have been captured and charged with offenses. If not, what makes this assassination legal?

are you saying that assasination is legal, but you don't know if this one qualifies or are you asking if any assasination attempt is legal?

generally speaking gerald ford in 1976 made an executive order to forbid us agencies from assasinating world leaders. but that executive order can be set aside by any president under various reasons (preemptive strike, self-defense for example-- reagan used that rationale when bombing gaddafi)

killing "terrorists" by any means has been the U.S. policy since i can remember-- certainly nixon, ford, reagan, bush sr, clinton thought it was.

technically, we're not at war with any sovereign nation-- we're supporting military operations of sovereign nations (afghannistgan, iraq) to kill or capture their enemies.

the taliban are considered enemy combatants-- why would their leaders be any less a valid target than the jihadi peasant with a AK-47?

 

[Don Roley]

The debate about this type of thing should have been held over a decade ago. Back then, Clinton ordered an air strike made to try to kill Bin Laden when he was in Afghanistan. Now the goverment there wants us to commit air strikes against Taliban, but back then it was a sovereign nation opposed to us but not at war. And yet America targetted Bin Laden in a failed air strike.

If no one screamed at that time, it seems a little strange to scream now considering that we are not commiting acts of war against Afghanistan as we were back then.

 

[michaeledward]

are you saying that assasination is legal, but you don't know if this one qualifies or are you asking if any assasination attempt is legal?

generally speaking gerald ford in 1976 made an executive order to forbid us agencies from assasinating world leaders. but that executive order can be set aside by any president under various reasons (preemptive strike, self-defense for example-- reagan used that rationale when bombing gaddafi)

killing "terrorists" by any means has been the U.S. policy since i can remember-- certainly nixon, ford, reagan, bush sr, clinton thought it was.

technically, we're not at war with any sovereign nation-- we're supporting military operations of sovereign nations (afghannistgan, iraq) to kill or capture their enemies.

the taliban are considered enemy combatants-- why would their leaders be any less a valid target than the jihadi peasant with a AK-47?

I am not asking if assassination is legal. Ford's executive order only covers world leaders, the second, or third, or forth in line would not be covered by Ford's order.

You don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization? If we can confligrate 'terrorist' into any popularly supported leadership role, what restrictions are placed on the label 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'?

For the moment, we do not know the combat situation around this airstrike. So, it could be that it was a combat situation: Us Guys Shooting at Them Guys and Them Guys Shooting as Us Guys.

But I do not believe that just because an Predator drops a laser guided bomb, that we are therefore in a combat situation. If we are going to start assassinating people with the United States Military, let's have a debate about it; let's us figure out what rules and ethics by which we are going to execute these tactics.

The fact is, the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. Are they all legitimate targets? If so, it seems to me we need to do a whole lot more killing over there. And we are going to be creating more enemies with each killing.

A correct analogy is the Hyrda, you cut off one head, and two more grow in its place. So, we, as a country, better be damn sure of the destination.