YAY!!!!!!

Zarquawi was an opportunist, and was not even Iraqi--he was Jordanian. He called himself the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq because it seemed like giving him authority. We do not know, of course, if they really did waste him--given the track record of this administration, one is justified in reserving judgement. I hope they did get him. However, the insurgents are for the most part Iraqis, they are likely to be Sunnis who had it good when the Ba'athists were in charge and who now have nothing to lose. I doubt if the violence will abate, although i certainly would hope so.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Except that it isn't WWII, we're not fighting Hitler and Shrub is CERTAINLY no Roosevelt. Taft, maybe...

The problem with you guys is that you always think that any analogy, no matter how limited, must be a blanket comparison of every single aspect of the two things being compared, which is merely stupid. My point was that the statement that violence is always the wrong answer, would also have to be applied to WW2. So, according to dadpad, violence was not the answer when Hitler was running amok in Europe.

0 Replies

Gosh if the news is all this good, then we should be able to leave Iraq today!

Hot Damn! George need a boost in the polls so we killed Zarqawi again!

http://proudliberalbitch.blogspot.com/

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
One hopes that this will cycle down the violence, but one suspects that it will not.

I am intereested to see if this is that catalyst to peace, or escalated violence.
I find it unlikely that becasue of him specifically, the insurgents found their destructive will.

Experts appear to agree:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060608/ts_nm/iraq_zarqawi_impact_dc_2

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
Except that it isn't WWII, we're not fighting Hitler and Shrub is CERTAINLY no Roosevelt. Taft, maybe...

The problem with you guys is that you always think that any analogy, no matter how limited, must be a blanket comparison of every single aspect of the two things being compared, which is merely stupid. My point was that the statement that violence is always the wrong answer, would also have to be applied to WW2. So, according to dadpad, violence was not the answer when Hitler was running amok in Europe.

Your lame analogy fails because the Germans did invade other nations, and were nearly destroyed as a result, because they had a proven track record of threatening their neighbors. The Ba-athist regime invaded Kuwait, and were driven out, and then allowed to continue in power--when Bush Pappy was at the helm. The Shrub then invades Iraq more than ten years later, and at a time when there was no reason to suppose that Iraq would go on a rampage, invading neighboring nations.

Germany declared war on the United States--Iraq did not. By the end of 1941, when Germany declared war on the United States, they had invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Belgium, France, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union. To borrow a phrase you have just used, to claim that any valid comparison can be made is merely stupid.

0 Replies

It's a miracle! Praises be!

They just showed a picture of this al-Zarqwai lying flat on his back waiting to be identified. What luck! Only one small scratch on his face in spite of the fact that this building was reduced to small pieces of rubble.

But old Zaq knew that his buddy george needed to see him up close and in person so he made sure that there was no damage to his face! Glory be!

It sure enough takes attention away from Haditha and bu$h's rock bottom poll numbers doesn't it?

0 Replies

Zarqawi leaves gap but insurgency will outlive him

BERLIN (Reuters) - The killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi removes the man who took Iraq's insurgency to new heights of savagery but it also creates a martyr whose inspiration will mobilize new recruits.

The United States helped to build up Zarqawi's aura, even before the invasion of Iraq, when Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations in 2003 he was part of a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

It was business as usual in Iraq on Thursday, with two bombs killing 15 people and injuring 36 in Baghdad within a couple of hours of Maliki's announcement.

"Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again," Bush said in the Rose Garden as he announced the U.S. airstrike on the militant whom Osama bin Laden had dubbed the "emir," or prince, of al-Qaida in Iraq.

So what will we do to see that our "violent man", bu$h, never murders again?

0 Replies

I have a hard time saying it is good that someone is killed no matter who they are or what they have done. However, more than likely this is true and it is good that he won't be in a position to do what he has been doing since the invasion; good for the Iraqis mostly. He was guilty of killing innocent civilians just as much if not more than our killing coalition troops. Plus, it would be good if indeed there is some relief to the violence there.

It would not be accurate to not acknowledge that a good deal of the killing is now between the factions by different militias and I doubt the insurgents in Iraq are going to give up. In fact I imagine it will just make them that much more determined.

What I don't understand is the need to always create new threads for every bit of news. There already is an Iraq thread.

0 Replies

BBB
One down, 1 million to go.

BBB

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

It's a miracle! Praises be!

They just showed a picture of this al-Zarqwai lying flat on his back waiting to be identified. What luck! Only one small scratch on his face in spite of the fact that this building was reduced to small pieces of rubble.

But old Zaq knew that his buddy george needed to see him up close and in person so he made sure that there was no damage to his face! Glory be!

It sure enough takes attention away from Haditha and bu$h's rock bottom poll numbers doesn't it?

as we speak he is being transported to a south seas island to join Bin Laden in the "bush poll numbers protection program" Laughing

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

... A key method in such perception management is the personalization of complex issues. For example, the "death tax" made "easy to understand" through presentation of a particular family. In the case of the Iraq insurgency, an easy to identify individual, al-Zarqawi, has been pushed forward as the key symbol of the insurgency.

Thus the only real consequence that might flow from this reported death is that in very short order some other personalized demon will be thrown up to fill that "easy to understand" empty space.

I think you're being a little harsh on the BushBeaver, Ward.

Zarqawi certainly aided his alleged demonization by means of his periodic videotapes and other pronouncements. If this is a case of perception management, then the administration didn't have to work very hard with such a media whore as Zarqawi.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...What I don't understand is the need to always create new threads for every bit of news. There already is an Iraq thread.

But, revel, it's dark and scary in there...

0 Replies

When battling the hydra you got to be careful to kill it all at once , not just one head at a time...

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Except that it isn't WWII, we're not fighting Hitler and Shrub is CERTAINLY no Roosevelt. Taft, maybe...

Hooooooooover Laughing

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
Except that it isn't WWII, we're not fighting Hitler and Shrub is CERTAINLY no Roosevelt. Taft, maybe...

Hooooooooover

Because properity--like victory in Iraq-- is just around the corner! Laughing

0 Replies

I am glad, if this brings an end to the occupation any closer...

...so long as everyone remembers the small inconvenient fact that there wasn't a significant al-Quaida presence until after we invaded Iraq.

0 Replies

Neither President Taft, nor Hoover deserve these slurs on their reputations.

President Taft never wanted the job, he wanted to sit on the Supreme Court. His wife and Teddy Roosevelt prevailed, and Taft spent a miserable time in office. Roosevelt felt betrayed when Taft modified and/or killed some TR programs, though Taft viewed the changes as necessary to preserve the Constitution. Taft and Teddy were the closest of friends, but the Presidency ruined their friendship and that hurt Taft a whole lot. The stresses of the job caused Taft to eat too much and exercise too little. He became the heaviest President in history eating to find some solace in a job he hated. Once he was out of office and on the Supreme Court, Taft regained his confidence and lost weight. Taft is justly regarded by many Constitutional scholars as one of the brightest ever to have sat on the bench. During the Taft administration the nation prospered.

Hoover was a hero swept into the White House in the public belief that he was just the man to "fix" the deepening depression. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the onset of the Depression, and he worked very hard to correct the situation he was handed. Much of the criticism leveled at Hoover arises from the way the Bonus March was handled. During the fat days of WWI, the nation decided to provide a bonus for every veteran that served in the Great War. Congress was very generous, but decreed that the Bonuses wouldn't be paid until sometime in the late 30's, perhaps the 40's (I'm sure Setanta has the actual date at hand, I do not). With people out of work there came a great cry from the veterans to pay their Bonuses immediately. They marched on Washington and camped out at the Mall in little shacks of tarpaper, tin and scraps. They were an eyesore, and an irritant to both the Administration and Congress who wanted them to just go away. Congress refused to be coerced into paying the Bonuses ahead of schedule, but the camp on the Mall remained in place. Hoover ordered General Macarthur (Chief of Staff) to evict the squatters, but that violence should not be used. Macarthur, against the advice of Eisenhower and Patton (only Colonels at the time) to personally stay away from the action. Macarthur chose instead to mount a big horse and lead the assault ... and assault it was. Protesters were beaten badly, and the whole place was burned to the ground. Hoover took the blame for the whole thing, though his General had disobeyed orders. Hoover was greatly constrained in what he could do because the prevailing view was that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from directly aiding individuals. The same Constitutional interpretations later caused FDR's efforts to pack the Court.

0 Replies

Goodbye, adios and good-riddenance .. Al-Zarqaui.

Someone else will take his place, but perhaps will be less murderous and dedicated to causing suffering. Fewer Zarquai's in the world should be a matter for universal celebration.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

blatham wrote:
... A key method in such perception management is the personalization of complex issues. For example, the "death tax" made "easy to understand" through presentation of a particular family. In the case of the Iraq insurgency, an easy to identify individual, al-Zarqawi, has been pushed forward as the key symbol of the insurgency.

Thus the only real consequence that might flow from this reported death is that in very short order some other personalized demon will be thrown up to fill that "easy to understand" empty space.

I think you're being a little harsh on the BushBeaver, Ward.

Zarqawi certainly aided his alleged demonization by means of his periodic videotapes and other pronouncements. If this is a case of perception management, then the administration didn't have to work very hard with such a media whore as Zarqawi.

Yup, he did. And if you saw someone's head off, you lose any sympathy which might otherwise obtain. That is if he actually was the fellow filmed in that act.

A big problem in sorting out what is really going on is that the Pentagon cannot be trusted to tell us the truth (eg Pat Tillman, Haditha, etc). It would be a romantic fallacy to assume that Poindexter's program was cancelled merely because liberal voices (though not exclusively) objected to misinformation campaigns directed at the home audience.

0 Replies

Boom! There it is.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know