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

Originally Posted by gukarma

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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...?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

For those playing the Nich Berg card:

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

Most amazing jew boots

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:

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by gukarma

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?

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.