THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Bin Laden might find relief in al-Zarqawi's death

Osama bin Laden and his number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, would have first met Abu Musab al-Zarqawi around 1999, just after he had been released from a Jordanian jail and made his way to Afghanistan.

Al-Zarqawi went there to set up a training camp in the western part of the country for a small group of his Jordanian followers known as Tawhid, an organization that aimed to overthrow the Jordanian government.

During this period, al-Zarqawi had no wish to attack the United States, as al Qaeda's leaders had already decided to do, and his relationship with al Qaeda was as much competitive as it was cooperative.

After the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, al-Zarqawi fled the country to Iran and made his way to northern Iraq sometime in 2002. He then started planning to attack American forces in what turned out to be the lead up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in April 2003.

Al-Zarqawi's group of mostly "foreign fighters" was small in number, no more than 1,500 at any time, but had an important strategic impact on the Iraq war.

It has been the foreigners who have conducted by far the largest numbers of suicide operations -- up to 90 percent -- and it is those operations that helped spark the incipient Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq. This unrest forced the United Nations and many other international organizations to withdraw from the country.

For this reason, bin Laden was delighted when in the fall of 2004 al-Zarqawi announced publicly that he was renaming his group "Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers," i.e. Iraq. Al-Zarqawi also pledged bayat, a religiously binding oath of allegiance to bin Laden, who he described as his emir, or prince.

So far so good as far as bin Laden was concerned. But by 2005, al Qaeda's leaders were worried that al-Zarqawi's beheadings of civilians were turning off popular support for their jihad in Iraq. Al Qaeda's leaders were also deeply concerned about al-Zarqawi's efforts to provoke a Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq.

While bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, both of whom are Sunni fundamentalists, may privately consider Shias to be heretics, they have never said this publicly. Al-Zarqawi by contrast has referred to the Shia as "scorpions" and has organized suicide operations against some of the holiest Shia sites.

The concerns of al Qaeda's leaders about al-Zarqawi­'s use of beheadings and his campaign against the Shias were underscored in a letter sent from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi that U.S. military forces discovered in Iraq last year. In the letter, al Qaeda's number two gently suggested that it was time to end the beheadings and to start acting as more of a political leader in anticipation of the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

In recent months, al-Zarqawi has stopped beheading his victims, but he has not let up in his campaign against the Shia. Upon hearing the news of al-Zarqawi's death, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri likely will release audiotapes indicating their joy that al-Zarqawi has finally received what he has always wanted -- martyrdom at the hand of the infidels.

But privately, they may hope that al-Zarqawi's successor in Iraq is more amenable to taking directions from al Qaeda central, which is located somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Viewed this way, al-Zarqawi's death could bring bin Laden some relief.

Al-Hayat says that successors to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are vowing to fight on. One report disputed that Abd al-Rahman al-`Iraqi was killed along with him, and said he was organizing for reprisals. Another report, from the US military, suggested that he had an Egyptian successor. Al-Zaman adds, that sources close to the Sunni Arab resistance movements, among the the (neo-Baathist) Army of Islam and the Brigads of the 1920 Revolution and the Army of Mujahidin said that Zarqawi's organization, which had announced open war on the Shiites of Iraq, had distorted the motives of the Resistance and harmed its potiential. They consider him a martyr, but differ with him in their interpretation (ijtihad) of Islam. One big problem for the guerrilla movement has been that it has largely been ethnic Sunni Arabs, and Zarqawi's tactics made pan-Islamic alliances difficult. The resistance movements appear to hope that with him out of the way, a Sunni-Shiite joint resistance to US presence might become more plausible. Al-Hayat says that they pledged "to intensify their operations during the coming phase against the American forces, as a way of demonstrating the true weight of al-Qaeda." (I.e., the indigenous Iraqi movements are saying that Zarqawi's group is not that important, and they will show who has really been doing the fighting.)

You're not trying very hard. Imagine being alone with a man who tells you he has a group of kids (yours?) hidden underground with a finite amount of air? What precisely wouldn't you do to make him talk? How about the suspect that tells you a nuke is going off in a city near you in 48 hours and smiles? While I don't believe I could actually torture anyone myself; I could real easy see myself feeling a sickening gratefulness that there exists men who could.

Field commanders tell Pentagon Iraq war 'is lost'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 5, 2006, 07:13

Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence killing 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month.

Even worse, they report the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha is "just the tip of the iceberg" with overstressed, out-of-control Americans soldiers pushed beyond the breaking point both physically and mentally.

"We are in trouble in Iraq," says retired army general Barry McCaffrey. "Our forces can't sustain this pace, and I'm afraid the American people are walking away from this war."

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clamped a tight security lid on the increasingly pessimistic reports coming out of field commanders in Iraq, threatening swift action against any military personnel who leak details to the press or public.

The wife of a staff sergeant with Kilo Company, the Marine Unit charged with killing civilians at Haditha, tells Newsweek magazine that the unit was a hotbed of drug abuse, alcoholism and violence.

"There were problems in Kilo company with drugs, alcohol, hazing [violent initiation games], you name it," she said. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."

Journalists stationed with the unit described Kilo Company and the Third Batallion of Marines as a "unit out of control," where morale had plummeted and rules went out the window.

Similar reports emerge from military units throughout Iraq and even the Iraqi prime minister describes American soldiers as trigger happy goons with little regard for the lives of civilians.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki says the murder of Iraqi civilians has become a "daily phenomenon" by American troops who "do not respect the Iraqi people."

"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable," Maliki said. The White House tried to play down Maliki's comments, saying the prime minister was "misquoted" although Maliki himself has yet to made such a public claim.

''Can anyone blame Iraqis for joining the resistance now?'' Mustafa al-Ani, an Iraqi analyst living in Dubai, told The Chicago Tribune. ''The resistance and the terrorists alike are feeding off the misbehavior of the American soldiers.''

As the resistance mounts and daily violence escalates, the overstressed U.S. units are unable to control the mounting violence and conclusions escalate that the war is lost.

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," says Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

The former commander of American forces in Northern Iraq admits incidents like Haditha add to the impression that the U.S. cannot win the war.

"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," says Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham.

Others say the incident just shows the U.S. has lost he "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.

"When something like Haditha happens, it gives the impression that Americans can't be trusted to provide security, which is the most important thing to Iraqis on a day-to-day level," says Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It tends to confirm all of the worst interpretations of the United States, and not simply in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and in the region."

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

...
Sorry, I don't buy into the hypothetical 'doomsday scenario' that has been peddled by those on the right. I don't condone torture and I don't think it is right. It doesn't matter what the scenario you envision is, at all.

This is a reframing of the classic 'is it right to kill a child to save a village?' argument. And the answer is no. The ends don't justify the means, no matter what sort of doomsday scenario you think up.
...
Cycloptichorn

On Cold, Darkness, and Evil

Does evil exist? The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied "yes, he did!" "God created everything?"", the professor asked. "Yes sir", the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold? The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does". The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said we see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."


The professor sat down. The young man's name --- Albert Einstein

O'Bill wrote:

Quote:

You're not trying very hard. Imagine being alone with a man who tells you he has a group of kids (yours?) hidden underground with a finite amount of air? What precisely wouldn't you do to make him talk? How about the suspect that tells you a nuke is going off in a city near you in 48 hours and smiles? While I don't believe I could actually torture anyone myself; I could real easy see myself feeling a sickening gratefulness that there exists men who could.

Sorry, I don't buy into the hypothetical 'doomsday scenario' that has been peddled by those on the right... .

...I don't condone torture and I don't think it is right. It doesn't matter what the scenario you envision is, at all

This is a reframing of the classic 'is it right to kill a child to save a village?' argument. And the answer is no. The ends don't justify the means, no matter what sort of doomsday scenario you think up.

I think the fact that you are willing to have others do your dirty work for ya, but not do it yourself, says a lot.

And therein lies the fundemental difference between an idealist and a realist. Less carnage= better. In your age-old classic example; the child must die.

Okay, realist. If you truly believe this, then have the balls to say that you would cap some child in the head because it might save people's lives. You would make that call, pull that trigger, kill that kid. This whole 'farming' out of torture or killing is a sign that you don't have the guts to do your own dirty work, but are morally approving of someone else doing the dirty work, which is f*cking pathetic.

Cycloptichorn

If killing one person,even a child,can save hundreds of lives,then it is worth it.

If killing one person,even a child,can save hundreds of lives,then it is worth it.

The problem is, neither of you have an iota of proof that there will be 'less carnage.' You only hope that there will be.
False! We have substantial evidence that delegating to the police prevention of itm carnage does not work; that is, does not prevent carnage by the itm (e.g., the Clinton administration January 1993 to January 2001, and the Bush administration January 2001 to September 2001).

Delegation to the police does not work for two obvious reasons:

First, the police cannot encarcerate itm for making threats or even acting in an alleged threatening manner. The police must wait until after the carnage is actually perpetrated by the itm before they can act to detect who perpetrated the carnage and where to apprehend them so as to prevent them from perpetrating their carnage again.

Second, the police cannot do a thing about itm who perpetrate their carnage in acts of suicide. After these itm complete their carnage they simply are replaced by other itm.

If not only police, then who else will help prevent itm carnage? We delegated some of that to military defense. We asked our military to defend civilians from itm carnage while the itm attempted to perpertrate carnage . For about three years military defense somewhat limited itm carnage. Then Zarqawi got the idea to attack both Shiite and Sunni civilians in Iraq while making it look to the Sunni and the Shia, respectively, as if the Shia and Sunni were attacking them. At that point, the rate of mass murder of civilians in Iraq escalated. Military defense wasn't working any longer either.

If not only police and military defense, then who else will help prevent itm carnage? We delegated to spies & interrogators the detection of scheduled carnage; that is detect imminent itm carnage before it happened. Spies & interrogators have helped some to prevent itm carnage, but no where near enough. The itm are currently murdering civilians at the rate of 23,346 per year, and probably will escalate that rate, if only this combined approach were to be continued.

If not only police, military defense, and spies & interrogators, then who else will prevent itm carnage? We must delegate that to the exterminators. We must have them proceed to exterminate the itm in anticipation of them organizing to perpetrate their carnage. Doing this will drastically reduce itm carnage as the number of itm is drastically reduced.

At what point does there become 'more carnage' due to our actions? Where is that line drawn?

The problem we are witnessing is 'more carnage' due to our failure to act as required to reduce itm carnage. If the rate of carnage were to continue to increase despite itm exterminators, then we would have to try something else. Ultimately the itm must be stopped for the good of humanity. Yes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki approaches are our ultimate solution, because we know they worked for the good of humanity.
...
Cycloptichorn

Seen the lates from Guantanamo?

"See how these inmates are making war against us! They're killing themselves!"

You couldn't make it up.