Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: DEAD (sensational foxnews wallpaper inside)
 

CNN STORY PLEASE CLICK HERE THIS IS WAY BETTER THAN FOXNEWS

Foxnews:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/207546...rqawi_dead.jpg
:rolleyes:

So they sorta killed him. But what now? Will there be "revenge"? What do you think, will Iraq be a safer place now?

Dead! Awesome. It's 4am and there is live news on it!

in a word : No.

In more words : He was sort of a national idol in Iraq, this probably wont go by unavenged, but how, i dont know, hell, you cant blow a tank up with a molotov cocktail (well not outside of GTA, anyway)

Good news indeed. But as we know if one leader fall then another appear . I hope this time will be different.

George Doublebush should have this for his desktop wallpaper.

Hehe, a wallpaper; that's actually a good idea, I haven't thought of that yet.

lol watch as his body is identified.

thanks internet news ;(

CSI: http

What is this above post about, can anybody tell me?

The body has been identified by facial recognition, finger prints, and known scars. This couldn't be anyone else than the dude.

I don't think he was a hero, dude. I remember hearing on the radio that he carried out beheadings HIMSELF, and that he was known for incredible brutality against even his own people.

Also, there's a report that the information on where he would be came from one of his agents. How's that for an organization that is being crippled?

While it's fantastic that they've finally eliminated him, and I'm sure we're all glad he's gone, the move is largely symbolic. Terrorism is a Hydra - chop off one head and two or three more will sprout in its place. This doesn't really mean any progress against Al-Queda except in a PR sense.

What to do, then?

Double Post:
It remains that this guy had a certain charisma, and the build of a leader that does not come easily.

If one had to choose between killing him or not, you'd have to be stupid not to.

gukarma is right, there certainly are masses of other terrorists who are glad that he's gone, because he often killed his own people with his bomb attacks. I wouldn't call him a martyr either, rather a brutal sadist that was trying to get the unbelievers out of the Iraq.

Thank god this sick freak is gone. All we need to do is kill or capture Osama.

Isn't anyone else irritated by the fact that the US seemingly was well aware of Zarqawi's location (information supplied by one of his followers, apparently) and still assassinating instead of capturing him? The latter would even be more of a success for the allied forces.

Not at all. There are many reasons to not try an capture someone. Maybe the area was too hot to go in with ground troops and try to capture him.

You know, I may get shit for this, but I can't believe you people are celebrating someone's death.

Yea okay so he was a real BADASS MOTHERFUCKER who was extrenously cruel to even his own people, carrying out beheadings himself and all. But I just can't imagine celebrating death. Maybe I'm insane.

But killing people is the way to go if you want to bring PEACE and PROSPERITY to the region!

Uhh okay? You see, this is a political discussion, we're not posting fucking confetti in here.

I bet the guys at the Pentagon and the White House are throwing huge a large congragulatory party for the pilots who blew away the bastard and the people involved in the operation. Why shouldn't people be celebrating the death of a madman who was known for carrying out beheadings himself and other horrible evil things?

Here is the amazing Fox News wallpaper in wallpaper size for everyone's convenience:

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7...aper1vb.th.jpg

I thought someone might respond like this.

But then I thought about the two people this guy BEHEADED with his own hands, the thousands of other people who died because of him.

Then I thought people who responded like that were insane.

Because, you know, I am a pussy-flinging liberal, but I still think that there are just times when it makes no sense to be a pussy-flinging liberal.

The Mexicans say "fuck you too."

So because terrorists use terrorist methods, we can use them as well?

Why didn't they bomb the shit out of Saddam? Would've saved them the farce that is his trial.

Yeah, so why didn't we bomb the shit out of Milosevic, or Goering?

I don't know, I thought we did try to bomb Saddam a few times, with no luck. Then he went underground, literally.

Pay blood with blood.

There is always what we called preventative diplomacy. It's necessary to kill a man before he killed million others! I'm sure many people want to kill some of fucktard genociders in this world before they started they shithole mass murdering. Yes, I'm celebrating his death.

They better capture him alive. I'm curious the truth about his relationship with Bush. White house could hide certain disputable facts by killing him without giving him chance to speak.

I think people are regretting not having killed Saddam on the spot.

After this crazy trial and everything they are probably wishing they put him out of his misery then and there.

Probably because Milosevic was extradited and Goering surrendered himself to US military.

His own hands? Like a judo-chop?:ninja:

Seriously though, I don't see why the notion that arresting and taking him to trial is so ridiculous all of a sudden? Isn't that like, the way that people used to want to deal with such matters? One's gut says to kill, but one's mind used to at least *try* to over-ride that.

Also, you don't see the line about 'killing millions!' as being just a wee bit exagerated?

Or is the popular mentality of the day really "Kill 'em. Trials are for pussies. He would have wrought untold horrors if they captured him.. somehow." ?

Cute. I hope the concept of meaningless trials for war criminals hasn't passed over your head.

This couldn't come at a better time for Bush, because a lot of the country is pretty much sick of him. Maybe his approval rating will go up about 2% for this, lol.



And about the death...well I guess it's cool that the prime guy behind Bin Laden is out, but like someone said: Terrorism is a Hydra.

To a certain point. If you recall, Israel killed the leader of Hamas. His successor was killed and another successor nominated. This sucessor was also killed. When no one wants the leader of Hamas position anymore then some success has been experienced.

When you have numerical, tactical and technological advantages you will win - it just comes down to your resolve and how much you are willing to bleed to accomplish your goals.

Best post in the entire history of the Political Palace.

Dude. Do you know what has happened with the Saddam trial?

Also, you understand this guy was guarded by suicide-belt terrorists, right?

Also, I said thousands, not millions, by which counts we could count more than a thousand Americans ALONE who were killed by or as a result of insurgency, which was by and large led by this dude.

I find it funny that you haven't heard about how Zarqawi beheaded Nicholas Berg, an American civilian.

This guy was pretty mobile. It takes time to mount a ground action to take out the house and possible capture him. Chances are good he would have moved before troops could have gotten to him. The airstrike was a quick decisive way to deal with the problem.

You realise Bush is surrounded by Secret Service men who will die before they let anyone kill him, right? omg, TERRORISTS!

We could count a thousand Americans ALONE who were killed by or as a result of the UNNECESSARY WAR IN IRAQ, which was by and large led by the American Government.

I find it funny that you haven't heard about how Nich Berg's parents don't think this was the best way to deal with matters.

How is he worse than Bush, exactly? Is killing someone with your own hands somehow worse than killing thousands of someones with other people's hands? Yeah, Zarqawi killed a lot of innocent people. So did your military. Yeah, Zarqawi presided over thousands of deahts. So did your president. He killed Americans because you invaded his country. When you help perpetuate a cycle of violence, you don't get to complain when your own people die. If the opposite had happened, if Bush had been assassinated and the Muslim world was celebrating, you'd all be on about how disgusting they are for rejoicing over the end of a life. Zarqawi may have been a religious extremist, but he was also the leader of the closest thing Iraq had to a military. You may not like it, but not everyone who worked for him was a terrorist; some of them wanted the occupying force to get the fuck out of their country. That's why I hate the word "terrorist" when it's used on people in a place like Iraq. He's no more a terrorist than you are. There's no difference between Zarqawi and the guy who dropped a bomb on his house this morning. They're both fighting for misguided ideals. Just because Zarqawi wasn't sanctioned by the US Puppet Governement doesn't mean he's better or worse than a Marine.

It amazes me how people don't realise that this is a TWO WAY STREET.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to not defame the Iraqi insurgency in the ignorant manner you just did by lumping all of it with Zarqawi and his outfit as if they were one single force, and then acting as if Zarqawi was calling all the shots.

I didn't.

I never came out and said that all the so-called insurgents were one single force. I just happen to believe that Zarqawi's group is one of the largest and better equipped/trained, thus representing more of a military than a militia. I also believe that those fighting against the Americans for reasons of sovereignty as opposed to religion would find it most expedient to ally themselves with the strongest internal resistance movement, which appears to have been Zarqawi's group. Don't blame me for making Zarqawi the figurehead (and thus making him appear to be the defacto leader/instigator of all the anti-us "insurgents" in Iraq). Again, your government did that.

Now, let's all say what a good job the Republicans are doing. Don't you have some kind of vote coming up soon...?

And the OJ trial turned into a farce as well, therefore no more trials for suspected murderers either.

It used to be fashionable to hold trials and to try to have some semblance of order and fairness in such matters. It's the loss of that aspect which I have a problem with. There is a good reason why judicial systems use courts and trials.

I have heard of the beheading. I chose not to let it blind me in such a way that I no longer would like a court like system employed in order to prosecute such people.

"He was bad. So we shouldn't bother with shit like, legal representation." Fuck yeah.

For those playing the Nich Berg card:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...rg-father.html

You said "You may not like it, but not everyone who worked for him was a terrorist; some of them wanted the occupying force to get the fuck out of their country". If you had said not everyone in the insurgency was a terrorist, you would have been right. But you said that about Zarqawi's organization specifically, which doesn't hold up; they're terrorists, pure and simple.

Zarqawi's organization represented, according to U.S. military estimates, 12% of the insurgency; that still leaves 88% who aren't Al Queda. Further, the jihadist types are also not overly loved by the Iraqi nationalist types and vice versa (Hamas' relationship with Fatah makes for a worthwhile comparison). I somehow doubt that those 12% are the strongest force fighting in the insurgency.

Nor are they likely the best trained and equipped, since the Baathist and Sunni insurgents undoubtedly have former Army, Republican Guard and Mukhabarat personnel at their disposal, and since one of the biggest blunders the CPA made was disbanding the Iraqi Army without disarming it first.

Al Queda in Iraq may have been the most vicious group in the insurgency, but that doesn't make them the strongest.

The United States didn't invade Jordan. Zarqawi was a Jordanian..a foreigner in Iraq, leading a band of terrorists, many of whom were also not Iraqi. He also conducted terrorist operations in Jordan against his own countrymen.

12% isn't such a measly portion when you look at how fractured the "insurgency" is. If the other 88% aren't united, then Zarqawi's faction may indeed be one of the strongest and largest groups operating within the country. And until someone passes out a questionaire to every militia man in Iraq, I won't be convinced that everything is as clear cut, as party-line as Bush makes it out to be.

You and I clearly disagree on the legitimacy of the word "terrorist" as it applies within a war zone. Nor is branding someone with that word "pure and simple." Honestly, the rate at which the American government and media bandies that label around has made it nearly devoid of meaning.

The relationship between Fatah and Hamas might be a relevant comparison, but then again, it might not. The situation in Palestine, while similar to Iraq, is still very different. Palestine and Israel have been at each other's throats for years; Fatah and Hamas have had lots of time to polarize, while both grew frustrated by their own impotence. The Iraqi "insurgency" is having a greater measure of success, and they haven't had years of downtime to fight with each other as effectively as Hamas and Fatah have. I do agree that there may be no love lost between the different factions, but there is still a possibility that they are cooperating to some degree, and I think this possibility is what made Zarqawi "the most wanted man in Iraq." He made a good banner around which others could rally. He is a charismatic leader and his group gave every appearance of being effective in combat. The worst nightmare of the illegally-occupying American imperialists -sorry, American Army (see why labels are no fun? ;_;)- is a united Iraqi "insurgency."

Double Post:
I'm failing to see your point, exactly. Iraq didn't attack the US. The US are foreigners in Iraq, leading a band of soldiers, most of whom are not Iraqi. Your arguement is that Zarqawi is getting involved in something that isn't his business, and is a terrorist because he is fighting in Iraq, though he wasn't born in Iraq? I guess that makes the American military terrorists for fighting to overthrow Sadam Hussein, even though the Americnas aren't Iraqis?

I see you've joined for the purpose of trolling. I doubt you'll be with us long.

EDIT: Hello again, Zato. And goodbye again.

Seems like more war-mongering propaganda.

This 12% is responsible for a much larger portion of the suicide attacks that happen in Iraq than the number might lead you to believe.

I understand that, I was not for the war either. However, what do you want the American troops to do? Pack up in leave? Yeah, that's something.

Also, I am not American. I'd like it if you didn't call them "my troops."

There are better scenarios for you to make a two-way street argument; this is just not one of them. Zarqawi ordered the killing of Iraqis and was by and large responsible of instigating sectarian violence.

Bush, although misguided is a very well-intentioned man. Democracy is a beautiful thing. I understand he is not the most honest man in the world, but he is not as evil as Zarqawi, by any means.

*

Well, now that you meantion how "my troops" are so evil? What's up with the Canadian troops in Afghanistan? Those are all pure? :judge:

You're probably right. That wouldn't surprise me. The media is rather slow. They're only figuring out now that the invasion of Iraq might not have been the greatest idea. It's only taken three plus years for them to figure that tidbit out.

The question is; what is the point in bringing it out now? Who's agenda is at work? For what purpose?

I would take a guess, but I don't want to offend our NSA overlords. :biggrin:

Ever heard of something called a straw man?

You insisted that Zarqawi's terrorism was the US's own fault for invading his country. This is not true, because he is Jordanian, and had no personal stake in Iraq. His sole purpose there was to stir shit up for his and Al Queda's own agendas. Nothing the US did justified his involvement save for simply being there. Trying to twist around a straightforward argument into supporting your curious argument on the definition of terrorism is poor debate form.

And while it is very true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, a conventional invasion and occupation force are most certainly not terrorists, regardless of how legitimate the war may be. Quit trying to redefine terms just to suit your own purposes.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were qualified to judge the percentage of evil present in a human soul (if either evil or a soul exists). That arguement is silly, at best. Bush and Zarqawi are both fighting to achieve their own ends, and by that logic, Zarqawi has just as much a right to be in Iraq as Bush does. More, actually, as he is linked to Iraqis through a bond of religion, wheras Bush is there solely out of a lust for oil. If you honestly believe that Bush is a "well-intentioned man" I feel bad for you. I suppose the power suits signify his good intentions, wheras Zarqawi's pajamas are a big ol' neon sign that just screams EVIL. What exactly do you base your calculation on? Explain to me how you know Bush has good intentions, wheras Zarqawi is an evil hate-monger who just wants Billy from Idaho to be blown all over Baghdad. Remember, this war WAS NOT about exporting democracy; it WAS NOT about WMDs; these things were just popular disguises to place over a bid for oil. There are two sides to this story. Like it or not, the Americans are an occupying force that invaded a sovereign country by lying, cheating, and denying international law. Many Arab nations are becoming more and more united in their hatred of America, and rightly so. If I were a Muslim living in the Middle East, I would feel pretty fucking nervous right now. First Afghanistan, now Iraq. Who's next? Maybe it's not such a bad idea to make this difficult for the people who want to KILL US AND TAKE OUR RESOURCES. Religion is uniting the Arab world, but so is fear. The War on Terror is just creating more terrorists.

Also, I'm not thrilled about Canadians taking over the Afghanistan mission. Not many people in Canada are. There was, however, a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan. They attacked North America. Now, the first thing the US did when al Qaeda attacked them was look for help from their allies (like, maybe Iraq looking for help from, say, JORDAN?). Canada volunteered, because Canadians died in the Towers too. We helped with the invasion, we watched as the plan disintegrated, ben Ladin got away, and the country fell into ruin. Now, luckily for the thinly-stretched American military, Canada is going to attempt to clean shit up. I don't like it. Most Canadians don't like it. But there's not much we can do, until Steven Harper gets kicked (or beheaded; whichever comes first),

Monkey King:

If Zarqawi is in Iraq for his own purposes and those of al Qaeda, how does this imply that he has no personal stake in Iraq? I fail to see how invading a sovereign country does not justify that country's allies from coming to its aid. I'd like to think that if Iran invaded Canada for no reason, the US wouldn't sit idly by. The legitimacy of the war has everything to do with branding insurgents as terrorists. Sure, American troops may be organized, they may be part of a conventional force. But when they disallow Iraq to have it's own military, when they disband that country's only means of defense, they do not get to brand all the militias that pop up as terrorists. When the American government flew in the face of international law and bombed the shit out of Baghdad, they lost all right to be treated as thought they were any better than Zarqawi and his pals. You might say that IEDs are despicable, that suicide bombers are cowards. But how much courage does it take for a technologically advanced military to drop hundreds of bombs on a sleeping city in the middle of the night?

Whatever man. I was against both invasions to begin with, as are most Americans now.

You can go on your crusade for morals and how awful we are for being happy this guy is dead.

I just want to get one thing straight: if this whole war is for oil why is America is spending billions of dollars in it and actually driving the costs of oil UP for itself? Furthermore, why is America whiling to stick it out with all these losses?

I said it before and I am going to repeat it: Democracy is a beautiful thing. Bush may be dumb and he may use the worst possible methods, but his intentions aren't inherently evil like those of Zarqawi, who fueled sectarian violence and looked to instigate a civil war.

AFAIK, America wants to stockpile all remaining oil sources in this world before they reach the peak. After the production of Middle east decline, america would stay as hegemonic since it reserved its oil long before middle east lost theirs.

Jerrica, looking over your posts in this thread and others in Political, it's apparent that everything you say is either willfully ignorant or is designed to provoke a negative reaction (i.e., trolling). This behavior isn't condusive to worthwhile debate.

No, but it is good for laughs.

At the sametime, Jerrica is presenting an argument with support (however infirm the support may be). We all present arguments twisted to reaffirm our own values and beliefs. The hope is that through debate we will be challenged, reassess our assertions and come to a logical conclusion or atleast objective view of a particular incident or situation. i.e. usage of the hegelian dialect.

Of course, it does become counterproductive when they keep presenting the same arguments without considering evidence presented which challenges either the premises or the conclusion.

Well, anyway, back on topic, I don't really know how confirmed people are that there will be a new onslaught on terror in Iraq. However, you can be sure terrorists groups are definitely dying to show the world that they can still move on without al-Zarqawi and that things are just going to return to normal. It's probalby going to be some horrific genocide display to tell the world that they're still moving on strong.

No doubt it's definitely a blow to Al-Qaeda, but I think it's only creating a temporary aversion to the bigger problem. I just hope insurgency is curbed ASAP. No more troops staying in Iraq adding onto the madness there is already of them staying there.

Afghanistan attacked North America?

The price of crude is going up for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that there we have a supply problem when it comes to oil production, in the sense that regimes of questionable integrity seem to have a lot of influence on the price of crude. In that respect, Washington policymakers may have had the intention of transforming Iraq, which has something like the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, into a model for "oil integrity", complete with an accountable government that respects the rule of law, both in the international and domestic spheres. This, theoretically, should result in higher, but, more importantly secure, oil output in Iraq, thus increasing the amount of oil reaching world markets, pushing the price of crude downwards.