Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Mother and child

InFront

I thought of posting this in Philosophy but it would probably just get moved to something stiff like Politics or whatnot so heres my question. Actually it is more of a rant...

The assasination of that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fellow, was it worth it? Did you read that a mother and child were also killed in the bomb. The mother and child were snippets at the end of the news item, and al Zarqawi's murder pronounced a triumph. This event is signifciant not only for the murder of a treachorous murderer, but also because it portrays how our value on human life in the free west has changed. Even here in our hornets nest on the edge of Europe where we are usually vociferous on this sort of thing, Americas jubilant triumphalism despite the deeper tragedy went largely without comment.

The trouble will continue, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will be replaced with another militant to equal him... So does it all just come down to getting one over on the enemy, and causing the death of mother and child, martyrs for the western cause? I just thought it showed something very characteristic to the American way of thinking, and that its acceptance here was disappointing.

Did you think it was America's triumph?

Terry

america's triumph?
maybe. maybe not.

after almost 5 years of trying, they finally got one of the al-qaeda leaders.
they only had to kill 100,000 people defending their country to do it.

SpAcEd OuT

It was later announced that a child was in fact not killed, yes the death of an innocent women is tragic but how many other innocent Iraqis would have been killed at the hands of al-Zarqawi and his 7 associates had America not striked. Yes someone will replace him, but its a huge blow to the insurgency, the man assumed by many terrorists as untouchable having escaped countless times from American searches and raids has finally been found and killed.

Manic Moran

To quote Blackadder: "With 50,000 men killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?"

I don't think it's an issue here for two reasons.
1) Lots of other women are killed in Iraq daily. Why should this one be any different or more noteworthy?
2) Chances are you don't have the most wanted man in Iraq in your house without either knowing about it or having a little advance notice. You certainly don't have him in your house without the man of the house knowing about it. Neither would you be allowed stay in the house for a high-level meeting unless you were completely trusted. Compared to a woman killed by a car bomb down the Baghdad Market who had nothing to do with either the insurgents or the US forces, this woman's death is less of a tragedy. \

3) (ancillary). How do we know that she wasn't a member of AQiI anyway? There are female insurgents, female suicide bombers. Why not have a female member of the leadership council?

NTM

davelerave

blair and bush were low-key in their celebrations of zarkawis death .at the news conference in the green-zone today the military were quizzed by reporters about how zarkawi died and was it justified to take out everyone in the house. but there have been other bombings far worse than this .i think post 911 we've become accustomed to these executions in the name of the 'war on terror'

Terry

Manic Moran wrote:

To quote Blackadder: "With 50,000 men killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?"

the pigeon's family

I don't think it's an issue here for two reasons.
1) Lots of other women are killed in Iraq daily. Why should this one be any different or more noteworthy?

no reason. a loss of life is still a terrible thing though, and not something to be celebrated.

2) Chances are you don't have the most wanted man in Iraq in your house without either knowing about it or having a little advance notice. You certainly don't have him in your house without the man of the house knowing about it. Neither would you be allowed stay in the house for a high-level meeting unless you were completely trusted. Compared to a woman killed by a car bomb down the Baghdad Market who had nothing to do with either the insurgents or the US forces, this woman's death is less of a tragedy. \

you could say the same about the innocent people killed by the countless bombs dropped by america all over iraq.

3) (ancillary). How do we know that she wasn't a member of AQiI anyway? There are female insurgents, female suicide bombers. Why not have a female member of the leadership council?

NTM

we don't. she could have been a terrorist, a nomad seeking shelter, his wife or a sex slave.


let me pose this question.
political leaning aside, how would you feel if dick cheney was blown to bits in his house by iraqi's?
he's a legitimate target. he had a hand in the (illegal) invasion of iraq.
let's say there was a woman in the house with him. would you question her alliegences, or would you take it as given that she was an innocent?

Ireland, while a democracy, has different political system to that of america.
what if, in the morning, they decide that they don't like our way of running things because "the people of Ireland are not getting a fair deal and need to be liberated" (aka. let's invade Ireland for it's stragetic position in europe).
i know it's not going to happen, but if it did, i would be one pissed of Irishman and would take every opportunity to kill the invaders and anyone associated with them.

Wertz

davelerave wrote:

blair and bush were low-key in their celebrations of zarkawis death.

Of course they were; they understand that now the hornet's nest has really been given a good old cocktail shaking and the real sh*t is ready to hit the fan.

OP this is what is known in military circles as collateral damage....ask the Israelis about it, they regularly take out civilians alongside their intended terrorist targets. War cheapens lives all round. Be thankful that you don't live in a warzone.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I was surprised that they rejoiced about it alright... I would have expected a more reserved response along the lines of "we don't like all this killing stuff, but it was for the greater good, it was a tactical blow..." etc.
Quite unusual... but then I think he was on the most wanted list wasn't he?

Mr.Nice Guy

I don't think the Americans have "celebrated" the death of Al-Zarqawi at all. There was none of the stuff we've seen in the past eg. "We got 'em", "Mission accomplished" and so forth.

As far as I'm concerned, Al-Zarqawi was a sick scumbag who deserved to die. This was a man who targeted aid workers and who was prepared to decapitate civilians. Are we supposed to mourn his loss? F*ck that.

The OP talks about "jubilant triumphalism" from America. That's rubbish. There's been none of that.

Al-Zarqawi beheaded an American hostage we must remember. Of course they are pleased that the man can now no longer do harm to others but they haven't exactly thrown a parade over it.

I smell the distinct whiff of the usual anti-American horsesh*t. Yawn.

Kernel

Wake up and smell the coffee.. Bin Laden is a CIA affiliate operative, who created 'Al Qaeda' to seve the purposes of imperialistic america. It worked to con the western world and the muslims. Duped.

America wins.

Kernel

Manic Moran wrote:

3) (ancillary). How do we know that she wasn't a member of AQiI anyway? There are female insurgents, female suicide bombers. Why not have a female member of the leadership council?

What about the kid? Was he/she 'Al-Qaeda'? Surely you don't really believe all that Al Qaeda bollocks anyway, you and your comrades being in Iraq risking your asses for phoney weapons of mass destruction? Bush's base are making a $killing$ (literally) and you guys have your ass in a sling for it.

For the record, the killer who was killed by US bombs was a puppet, and he deserved to die, don't get me wrong. For Ken Bigley alone he deserved it. But Nick Berg... hmm.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kernel,

I don't know what it is you're smoking but can I have some?

nesf

Moved to Humanities.

jimmycrackcorm

If a mother and child were with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when he was killed then it was their risk. Anyone should be aware of the risks of being in such a position given his reputation and the stated intent to get him.

SpAcEd OuT

Kernel wrote:

Wake up and smell the coffee.. Bin Laden is a CIA affiliate operative, who created 'Al Qaeda' to seve the purposes of imperialistic america. It worked to con the western world and the muslims. Duped.

America wins.

your joking right

comments like that belong in the conspiracy forum

SpAcEd OuT

Kernel wrote:

What about the kid? Was he/she 'Al-Qaeda'? Surely you don't really believe all that Al Qaeda bollocks anyway, you and your comrades being in Iraq risking your asses for phoney weapons of mass destruction? Bush's base are making a $killing$ (literally) and you guys have your ass in a sling for it.

For the record, the killer who was killed by US bombs was a puppet, and he deserved to die, don't get me wrong. For Ken Bigley alone he deserved it. But Nick Berg... hmm.

Firstly No kid was killed, More recent reports have said there was no kid involved.

Secondly Al-Zarqawi did decapitate Nick Berg I witnessed the video

Manic Moran

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Firstly No kid was killed, More recent reports have said there was no kid involved.

The arguments would be as valid in the hypothetical of a kid being there though.

Secondly Al-Zarqawi did decapitate Nick Berg I witnessed the video

Didn't he wear a mask in that one?

political leaning aside, how would you feel if dick cheney was blown to bits in his house by iraqi's?
he's a legitimate target. he had a hand in the (illegal) invasion of iraq.
let's say there was a woman in the house with him. would you question her alliegences, or would you take it as given that she was an innocent?

No apostrophe in "Iraqis" (Pet peeve)

To answer the hypothetical question (And for the record, I dispute the 'illegal' in brackets), I would feel a little surprised since Rummy is probably one of the best guarded people in the country. I think nailing his car/entourage would be far more feasible than blowing up his house. But yes, he is a legitimate target. Certainly the Secret Service thinks he's a target, given all the security.
If Mrs Rummie or the Rummettes were in the car with him, well, that's just the way it goes, and has always been. When Rummie made the decision to run for office, he knowingly brought attention not just to him, but to his family as well. It's why they -all- get security, not just Mr Rummie.

but if it did, i would be one pissed of Irishman and would take every opportunity to kill the invaders and anyone associated with them

I wouldn't blame you, at least up until you had voted your own new government into power. But would you put a bomb in the Henry Street Market in the meantime? I have less of an issue with insurgents who at least make military personnel a primary target. People like Zarqawi do not make that distinction, indeed tend to prefer to go for the softer options.

NTM

SpAcEd OuT

Manic Moran wrote:

Didn't he wear a mask in that one?

Yes he did wear a mask though at the start of the video it says al-Zarqawi beheads an american and before any conspiracy theorists say the Americans must have added that in, it was released on an al-Qaeda site with that heading and if you look at the man doing the beheading he is physically identical to al-Zarqawi, add to that al-Zarqawi actually admitting to carrying out the beheading [though so have other people]

Pompey Magnus

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Yes he did wear a mask though at the start of the video it says al-Zarqawi beheads an american and before any conspiracy theorists say the Americans must have added that in, it was released on an al-Qaeda site with that heading and if you look at the man doing the beheading he is physically identical to al-Zarqawi, add to that al-Zarqawi actually admitting to carrying out the beheading [though so have other people]

Ignoring of course the absence of Zarqawi's distinctive tatoo on his hand, his inability to stand properly due to a poorly fitted prosthetic leg which wasn't evident in the video, and that Arab linguists claim the guy who did the beheading didn't speak with a Jordanian accent (some claimed whoever it was wasn't even a native Arab speaker and also in the video he talked about the Abu Gharaib scandal a week before the first pictures were released by the media but that's for another discussion)

bottlerocket

I doubt the average Iraqi is shedding any tears, this guy has pretty much succeeded in fomenting civil war in Iraq. **** him, he had it coming. And yeah, he was fighting the Americans too but his main aim was to wipe out the Shia's, he said so himself many times.

Shellie13

Kernel wrote:

Wake up and smell the coffee.. Bin Laden is a CIA affiliate operative, who created 'Al Qaeda' to seve the purposes of imperialistic america. It worked to con the western world and the muslims. Duped.

America wins.

Sure you don't wanna shove this into conspirisy theories?!

Its tragic that civillians were killed alright...but ur man was better taken out!
Im not an american sympathiser by any stretcha d imagination but i think a fair few people are quick to jump on the usa-hating bandwagon!

Terry

Manic Moran wrote:

To answer the hypothetical question (And for the record, I dispute the 'illegal' in brackets),

i'm gonna go with the U.N. secretary general on this one

But we are living through historic times when events have momentous consequences. fact is that the most powerful nation on earth went to war in defiance of the U.N. The Secretary General described the Iraq invasion as illegal.as an act with vast and long-lasting potential consequences which impact on the security of us all. This is a time when American voters, perhaps more than anyone else on earth, need to be well informed. The American press has a very serious duty to perform and clearly they have not done as well as they should have.

I wouldn't blame you, at least up until you had voted your own new government into power. But would you put a bomb in the Henry Street Market in the meantime? I have less of an issue with insurgents who at least make military personnel a primary target. People like Zarqawi do not make that distinction, indeed tend to prefer to go for the softer options.

NTM

first off, i wouldn't put a bomb on henry street, unless i knew it was a legitimate military target.
"I wouldn't blame you, at least up until you had voted your own new government into power"
so are you saying that america has the right to invade countries whose government they don't approve of, even if it's a democratically elected government?

Manic Moran

julep wrote:

.
"I wouldn't blame you, at least up until you had voted your own new government into power"
so are you saying that america has the right to invade countries whose government they don't approve of, even if it's a democratically elected government?

Two different issues.

As long as some other country comes in, and decides to run the place their way, with their men in charge, it's an occupation, regardless of if they say "This is a local government, we are now just guests." Once you have elections, with your own ministers in place, isn't it kindof counter-productive to then go and try to blow up those ministers for being in league with the occupiers? "Yes! I'll vote for you and your hopes for independence! Just so I know who to blow up next week!"
You are very quickly going to run out of any incentive to have your own government. Same with blowing up anyone who shows up at the recruiting stations for local police or army. Some form of police force is required, and you can either have the occupiers in place, or local lads. The more you blow up the local lads, the more occupiers you have. The policy doesn't seem to have a practical beneficial outcome.

Speaking generally as to the second part, I think the doctrine of Jus ad Bellum is a little more complex than simply 'Does the UN Security Council Approve?', and indeed a war can be 'just' even if the UN doesn't like it.

NTM

Kernel

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Firstly No kid was killed, More recent reports have said there was no kid involved.

Secondly Al-Zarqawi did decapitate Nick Berg I witnessed the video

Well, if western media have now said there was no kid killed, it must be true.

As for the Nick Berg video, I also watched it several times (it proves nothing), and there are a lot of issues with it. The so called Al Qaeda website it was shown on was also taken offline within half an hour, so I wouldn't hold that as conclusive proof either. he even emailed one of the 911 hijackers who he supposedly met before 911 on a bus ride in Oklahoma....

If you want some discrepencies on the video, then check out the following site - be warned that it contains a couple of images that some may find offensive (a couple of stills of the beheading footage). Mods: I don't think this is too graphic, but if you decide otherwise, of course feel free to remove the link.

http://aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm

Here is a website listing many 'fishy' details about Nick Berg - including the fact that he may have been an Israeli spy (this site is safe for anyone to look at):

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477

And another website detailing the connection between Moussaoui and Berg:

http://www.rense.com/general53/911BER.HTM

WhiteWashMan

Kernel wrote:

Well, if western media have now said there was no kid killed, it must be true.

ah well, if you say they are lying, it must be true...

Chucky

This is the problem nowadays: Too much talk.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Kernel wrote:

Well, if western media have now said there was no kid killed, it must be true.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

ah well, if you say they are lying, it must be true...

o.0

now I don't know what to believe....

Kernel

WhiteWashMan wrote:

ah well, if you say they are lying, it must be true...

I never said they were lying.

I was pointing out the folly of believing western media reports for such a situation prone to propoganda control. Why would the military report that a child was also killed and then change it? I'm sure they would have known who was killed in the attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html?ex=1150430400&en=a430c7dfe92124f6&ei=5018&partner=BRITANNICA

Gurgle

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

how many other innocent Iraqis would have been killed at the hands of al-Zarqawi and his 7 associates had America not striked

Maybe 1 for every 100 killed by US air strikes and checkpoint guards.