Is Al Zarqawi getting a bomb drop good?

Houdini

Well last night about 6:15 Baghdad time two U.S. Airforce jets delivered two 500 pound bombs right to the "Safe House" that he and some of his closest murderous buddies were having a meeting to plan to kill even more people. Here below is a pic I found on the internet before he got first hand experience (although short lived) of what a 500 pound bomb does to the intended target.

I don't think he will be severing the heads off innocent people anymore while praising their action of murder to God, what if they are wrong (murder is wrong).

Shrike

No I don't think dropping a bomb on anyone is good, I'm sure more innocent people died from the bomb blast, but any mention of that was overlooked at least by the radio this morning.

I don't support the insurgency in Iraq whatsoever. This guy above most probably deserved to die. I am completely against the so called War on Terror and moreover America's insistence on being the world police. How can a government which considers Guantanamo Bay legal be considered to be doing good?

vaaaska

Peace through understanding.

Bombs are medieval bullshit.

FatStratCat

Furthermore, why start a war that will never be won?

I keep wondering this myself. Unfortunately those of us who think this way aren't in a position to make those decisions.

rvdavid

A classic example of violence begets violence... Live by the sword, die by the sword...

or in Zarqawi's case...

Live by the bomb... well you know the rest.

I'd take the diplomatic approach and say that it's never "good" to have anyone killed regardless of cause.

Murder is murder regardless

... oh, and death to America...

lol sorry too many late nights watching David Laterman.

Weedpacket

Hmmmmm.... must be the U.S. Government's idea of "due legal process".....

Rodney_H_

I work for a small firm run by a husband and wife team. They used to be peace activists in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and are still doing peace and justice work. They are very knowledgeable and admirable people, so I learn a lot about politics from all over the world. It is interesting to work with people as committed to a violence-free world as I am committed to writing PHP without parse-errors.

The general consensus in our offices are that the "war on terror" is a farce. Moreove, it is a crime. Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for lying to the US People and for doing the things they have done. I have met Juan Torres and Cindy Sheehan, two parents of soldiers, who died in Iraq, and I am sympathetic to them and all other parents, who have lost their children to this War. One could almost say that Bush should send his daughters over to fight if he believes so strongly in it, but I would rather he end the war than to make that point.

To return to the issue at hand, this war in particular, violence begets violence. Not the way to promote world peace. Bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity I read once. We need to get rid of BUSH asap, even if that means impeachment, and get a strong leader willing to make hard decisions.

FatStratCat

get a strong leader willing to make hard decisions.

~sigh. If it was only that easy. Remember that Bush was elected primarily by his conservative christian voters, many of whom still support this war.

Unfortunately, I think that anyone who is in the position to be elected president has been so compromised by the political process of getting there that many of the moral and ethical values they started out with get kicked to the curb along the way.

All we can hope for is that the iraqi people wake up to the fact that the shortest road to end this war is to stop the sectarian violence. As long as that continues the Bush Administration will refer to it as a "war on Terror" and maintain troops there.

Rodney_H_

I feel you, Brad. Just because we want to show respect for the fallen troops for their bravery and dedication, does not neccessarily mean that the REASONS they died, the reasons the commander in cheif chose to go to war, were the best reasons.

It is not that they died for nothing, but the reason(s) are getting more and more, muddied.

War on Terror is one thing. War for Oil is another. The line is not clear, is it?

dalecosp

shrike wrote:
No I don't think dropping a bomb on anyone is good, I'm sure more innocent people died from the bomb blast, but any mention of that was overlooked at least by the radio this morning.

A woman and child, sez washingtonpost.com. They probably didn't deserve it; although, they were hanging with some bad dudes.

vaaska wrote:
Peace through understanding.

Understanding requires rationality, and it doesn't seem to be forthcoming from these types.

bradgrafelman wrote:
I'm a Christian, so I don't think we should have the right to kill anyone.

A very difficult point. Of course, we should first go "Old T" and remember that it was "thou shalt not murder" ... there was plenty of racial extermination commanded by the LORD.

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that less praying, fasting, and reaching out is happening; it's more of a "quick prayer and smitest the heathen" ....

should we be the ones to decide that?

Good question. Makes you wonder what inputs they have for the decision-making process. I wouldn't want that job.

rvdavid wrote:
Live by the sword, die by the sword...

A very real danger for everyone these days.

fatstratcat wrote:
Unfortunately, I think that anyone who is in the position to be elected president has been so compromised by the political process of getting there that many of the moral and ethical values they started out with get kicked to the curb along the way.

Seems too true. Also, if anyone ever did get there with their values intact, would they really have had any to begin with? Our culture gets a pretty poor grade on values: some because they don't teach any, and others because the values they teach aren't valid, anyway.

bradgrafelman wrote:
what are we saying to all of the families back in America...

There's something a lot of people need to think about.

Rodney H. wrote:
It is not that they died for nothing, but the reason(s) are getting more and more, muddied.

Maybe. Maybe not. Their reasoning must be clear. It's their duty, and they do it.

Upstairs, your point is more important. What are the motivations behind all this? I think that we're not hearing a bald-faced lie every time we hear that "it's about establishing democracy". I think that's what they really want for Iraq. But, why? How many hundred reasons do they have? How high does oil rank on the list? Is it even on the list? (answer, I'm sure it's been mentioned....)

The line is not clear, is it?

Little, if anything, is clear. Maybe that it's going to get much worse before it gets any better....

Maybe one thing. We need some place to put illegal immigrants. If we can clear a few hundred thousand square miles of desert, maybe we can resettle them there.... :evilgrin: Bombs away! :evilgrin: OK, just kidding....

dalecosp

Liberia, you mean? Or maybe Australia?

Problems like these aren't likely to be solved, as you and I both know ....

Jason_Batten

vaaaska wrote:
Peace through understanding.

Bombs are medieval bullshit.

We are all guilty of our lack of understanding aren't we 😉

Not everyone will ever agree, not everyone will be able to understand the concept of tolerance. We are not all the same, our brains do not function the same.

I agree but it just won't happen when we have brain-dead people running our world.

I've been beaten with the tolerance stick and it was good. Only got it through my youth work course, never through parenting or schooling and I went to a catholic primary school :glare:

Houdini

Update: This man will no longer plan or carry out murdering innocent Sunni's or other Muslam members or trying to blow up coalition forces vehicles or foot soldiers. He was in Iraq well before the U.S. came in and has been planning and carring out carnage and mayhem ever since.

This man is responsible for the planning and execution of far too many atrocities in the country of Iraq. Oh by the way he got ratted out by one of his buddies, not to mention the anti-terrorist squads that monitored his and others communication and when they found the right time and place destroyed him in a fell swoop using laser guided missles to accomplish the mission.

Sure to be more madmen that are murderous in heart but he is a done deal and a really major accomplishment, kind of like killing Rommel in the second world war or killing one of Hitler's Generals.

Here is what happens with enough time given to the U.S Military to find you sorry rear and, and it is not pretty at all.

[edit]Sorry, but this picture is a bit graphic to display here considering we have members that are on the young side. Thanks.[/edit]

Rest in pieces, you sorry animal. No more cutting peoples heads off while chanting to Allah how great it is that you are murdering someone (against the Geneva Convention by the way to portray such things.), maybe you will get tolerance from Allah but not from the U.S. Armed Forces...you are now another dead enemy that can not harm any of us or anyone else. POOF and now you are gone!

Shrike

I heard quite an interesting piece about this...apparently this guy was a bit of an embarassment to Al Quaeda, a bit too extreme. The reporter suggested that the US might have done the insurgents a favour by taking him out...they get a martyr and less atrocities to sully their name.

pohopo

Sometimes violence must be taken to stop violence and to think otherwise is naive. How were we supposed to stop Germany and Japan in WWII? By holding hands in a circle and singing "Jesus Loves Me"?

In saying that Iraq was not Japan nor Germany. America went into war with Iraq not because they attacked anyone, but because we 'believed' they might do it in the future. This change in policy is quite scarey because choices are now decided not on fact, but on fear.

Now we have nukes which completely change everything because now a single person has the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people instantly. Do we wait for this to happen first to take action or do we let our follow our fears and take preemtpive action? IMHO both choices are pretty damn crappy.

The bombing on Al Zarqawi will stop nothing and is just one of the 100 bombs that go off daily in Iraq while we safely sit on our butts, warming the chair, and typing on PHP forums about right and wrong.

Jason_Batten

How were we supposed to stop Germany and Japan in WWII? By holding hands in a circle and singing "Jesus Loves Me"?

lol, exactly but when did Iraq invade poland?

You do know that Japan attacked China mainly for oil...

rpupkin77

I understand that there is an argument against war and that unprovoked violence against anybody is the antithesis of a moral life. But we are not talking about some random innocent.

this is a man who weeks before his death advocated a Holy War against the Shiites in Iraq - his own countrymen and fellow Muslims.

AL Z was a street thug who rose to be the leader of a vicious gang of murderers who took no precautions to prevent and in fact sought to kill innocents.

He is dead. We should be grateful. The people in Iraq are.

dream_scape

pohopo wrote:
How were we supposed to stop Germany and Japan in WWII? By holding hands in a circle and singing "Jesus Loves Me"?

Non-violence does not equate to passivity. Being passive is easy, all to easy; non-violence is a practice that can be difficult to do. Especially in times of war, it might be argued that practicing non-violence is far more difficult than not.

The two great modern examples of non-violence that everyone is familiar with are Martin Luther King Jr. in the fight for civil rights, and Mahatma Gandhi in the fight for India's Independence from Britain.

Interestingly, we're currently living in the "International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World". Gee, could have fooled me.

team_lh_Max

I'm happy that most of you think like this right now, i guess 2 years ago you would have all had other opinions. In any way, somebody has to be the world police, and the US is somehow the only country which is really able to. Of course this war was not necessary at all, started for nothing and wrong proves, but when it really is needed, it is good to know that the US is able to defend our views and way of living (talking about the whole western world now).

Anyway

What the hell gives us the right to decide if that guy deserves to be dead or not? No matter what he did.

piersk

team.lh Max wrote:
I'm happy that most of you think like this right now, i guess 2 years ago you would have all had other opinions. In any way, somebody has to be the world police, and the US is somehow the only country which is really able to. Of course this war was not necessary at all, started for nothing and wrong proves, but when it really is needed, it is good to know that the US is able to defend our views and way of living (talking about the whole western world now).

I was determined not to get involved with this thread, however I'm shocked that you the think that there is a need for "world police". We already have that in the form of the UN. Why did the US and (unfortunately) the UK decide that they should play god with other people's countries? Yes there was the need to get rid of Hussain, but wouldn't it have been better to do what everyone in the UN wanted rather than jumping in feet first? Whats the point in having the UN and its security council if no one is going to listen to it?