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

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lizzardcommando

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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

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

Originally Posted by gukarma

But then I thought about the two people this guy BEHEADED with his own hands

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." ?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Rock

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

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Rock

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

Best post in the entire history of the Political Palace.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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." ?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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...?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by gukarma

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

For those playing the Nich Berg card:

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

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrica

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Jerrica

He killed Americans because you invaded his country.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by thunderhawk

i don't see how you can drop two 500 pound bombs from an F-16 on someone's head and somehow still manage to come up with a picture of his dead body...


Furthermore, do any of you know what acts of "terrorism" this guy committed?

He fought the US army because - though many of you bastards are in denial of this- they are invaders, not that that makes him a hero, but at least he's fighting against something unfair, something alot of you cowards would never do, im sure..

Fuck the fact that he ain't an Iraqi, he's fighting for a cause, that being something in the essence of "Get the fuck out, it ain't none o' your business"

oh and "Die yankies..!" .. too.. -_- ..

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.

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

Spoiler:

Hm, I could have sworn they announced this guy dead in 2004.

Seems like more war-mongering propaganda.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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 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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Sar

Spoiler:

Hm, I could have sworn they announced this guy dead in 2004.

Seems like more war-mongering propaganda.

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:

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Posted by Jerrica
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?

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad 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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.