Paaskynen wrote:Dear Timber,
If we go by your rules of engagement, neither you nor I are safe if our neighbour happens to be, or accommodate, someone the US government considers a terrorist.
Nonsense. The fact of the matter is that a state of war exists between The US and the stateless ideological entity of which Zarqawi was a self avowed and generally accreditted member, and the fact is that Zarqawi was engaged in armed rebellion - insurgency - in violation both of international law and the law of the country in which his activities were being conducted, and the fact is that The US, through its Military' is allied with and obliged to assist the lawful, duly elected government of the nation in which Zarqawi was conducting his illegal activities. By international law and by the law of the host country, the US action - action undertalken in support of Iraqi Government suppression of rebellion - was wholly lawful.
Quote:I thought the "war" in Iraq was "accomplished" on May 1st 2003 and that the US forces since then have been occupying troops engaged in "police tasks".
You either misinterpret or misconstrue the facts. What was announced as, and indeed had been, accompl,ished on May 1 '03 was the end of the major combat phase of the war, the removal of Saddam's regime and the incapacitation of his military - nothing was said or implied to the effect the war was over; to the contrary, in fact, it was made clear that much yet remained to be done. Key among the remaining tasks was and is seeing to it the democratically elected government of Iraq be capable of seeing to its own security. That is the present state of affairs, a task and obligation drawing day by day closer to accomplishment.
Quote: Putting a price on someone's head (alive or) dead is illegal in my country
Be that as it may, it is irrelevant; the events at discussion did not take place in any jurisdiction subject to the laws of your country, and the actions conformed to both international and host country law.
Quote: and so is bombing him and everybody in his vicinity.
Another misrepresentation of the facts; the bombing was a precision strike, targeting, and essentially affecting, only the building occupied, unlawfully, by a contingent of unlawful combatants, participants in a clandestine and illegal rebellion, unlawful combatants who, as events turned out, placed at ultimate risk the lives of uninvolved civiloians, in itself another violation of international law.
Quote:If we are to be the good guys we must stick to the rule of law.
Indeed. That's what is being done.
Quote:Otherwise you might as well start bombing the slums of L.A. and the backwaters of Idaho where armed groups opposed to the authorities have their hide outs.
Ridiculous, straw man, non sequitur - totally silly.
Quote:The way Zarqawi was disposed of does not set an example to the Muslim world of us maintaining our ideals of fair trial and justice for all and it has made Zarqawi a martyr for the extremist cause. His death will attract more people to the anti-western jihad.
Zarqawi had the option of submitting to arrest. He chose instead to evade and continue unlawful resistance. Given the history of the insurgency and the particulars of the situation as it pertained, an airstrike followed by troop presence was the surest, least-likely to cause, most-likely to prevent unnecessary damage to civilian life or infrastructure. A siege and protracted shootout all but certainly would have resulted in far greater, far more tragic loss, both civilian and military.
Whether Zarqawi's elimination will serve as you conjecture it might remains to be seen. Frankly, I doubt it will have the effect you predict. It certainly won't end the war, end the violence, but I believe it brings us that much nearer that goal - a goal yet distant, a goal which will be achieved only with continued vigilance, diligence, and resolve, a goal which will be achieved.
