Zarqawi in the Dead Book

[Carib FMJ]

Yeah I heard that this morning. They slagged that Zar fella.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wether or not he was 'worthy' is irrelevant - I'm fairly sure Filip Dewinter, the Flemish friendly neighbourhood Nazi, also fits the description you gave there, yet if anyone were to bomb him he probably wouldn't recieve world-wide fame and glory.

The difference between him and Heydrich or Zarqawi is that those two follow through on their fantasies. That makes it okay to kill them.

If you just bomb people, no matter how criminal they are, you create an athmosphere of lawlesness and government terror. Defining wether or not people are 'worthy' of being bombed without trail is arbitrary, and could easily lead to abuse of power. Like, y'know, Saddamn Hussein did. And I guess that's not the way the US wants to steer Iraq.

Saddam gassed children and women by the thousands. We selectively kill a genocidal shit and imprison soldiers that go crazy after being attacked and loosing a few men from their platoon.

You would have to be a retard or, worse, a Leftist European to not see the difference.

 

[PhredBean]

While a trial should have taken place, I don't thank anyone here is so illusioned that they'd think it to be any more than a formality.

That is, sadly, also true.
Guarantee of law is, as Suleyman the Magnificent put it, the basis of any stable and prosperous nation. If a government puts up mainly fake trials, like the Saddam one, you are creating the same athmosphere of lawlesness, arbitrary law and government terror as I noted above. Everybody should be equal for the law, no matter how dispised he might be in the public eye.
That's, y'know, democracy. The very reason the US invaded Iraq in the first place.

It's not so much that we'd be staging a trial or even need to, it's a simple matter of him being obviously guilty. His face is on videos, there'd be no way he'd deny charges as he'd stand by his attrocities proudly, there is essentially no defence that could help him against the crimes he commited. There wouldn't need to be a mock-up of any of it, no lawyer could get him off, the trial would be little more than a formality any way it's cut... unless maybe he got a french judge.

They are criminals more than just simple citizens; there are times when criminals, particularly rabid ones, simply need put down. However you are right on one point here, it's have been best if he was captured, not bombed. However, by not capturing him , we also avoided the inevitable wave of hostage-takings with demands of his release and other useless, but horrible, terrorist measures. Either way, the americans are justified, but capture would have been the better approach, for both an information and fairness perspective.

To be fair, he probably wouldn't let himself be captured anyway. But even a formality of an attempt to arrest him would've been better than killing him and bystanders with bombs from two F-16's.

I agree.

 

[Brother None]

If you just bomb people, no matter how criminal they are, you create an athmosphere of lawlesness and government terror.

Why exactly would capturing him make this any difference, seeing as he would just be ported to Guantanamo (or Poland, whichever is worse), which is hardly the epitome of lawfulness.

You would have to be a retard or, worse, a Leftist European to not see the difference.

I think you're looking at a completely different "shade of difference". You're look simply at which act is worse in result, Jebus is looking at which act is worse absolutely.

The most important source of that difference is, obviously, the question of what you're fighting for. Arguably, where the American perspective is that you're fighting for your country and citizens, the Europeans are in favour of fighting for "superior values".

To say the US is fighting for freedom, justice or even world peace would be a ridiculous statement at best at this point in time.

Baathists did not like Zarqawi. They may be Nazis, but Nazis are anticlerical in any case.

You stated a different reason one post before this one. Learn a little consistency.

I think they are Nazis. But I also think that they wish to create an Iraq with an effective central goverment that they will eventually come to dominate. Genocide and civil war is not thier interest.

That's odd, they seem to be enjoying it so far.

No, it is not. But it is entirely likely that somewhat cooler heads will prevail. A cooler head then Zarqawi's, remember, includes Osama's.

Cooler is in no way better for the opposition. It might at best mean less random slaughters, and more targeted attacks against the foreign infidels over fellow muslims. Good news for Iraqis, bad news for Americans.

Replacements do not come out of the woodwork. They take months of consolidation, and rarely are they as influential or powerful as the original. In this case it is some of the most crucial months in recent Iraqi history as the Iraqi Sunni Islamofascists scrambe about like a headless chicken.

I heard that before. Right after the invasion, right after the elections, etc. etc.

It never amounts to much, nor will it now.

And yes, replacements do just come out of the woodwork.

I think he will have less power. Terrorist organizations tend to splinter once a particularly awful and violent leader has been assassinated.

Really? I doubt it, especially since AQ is not a heirarchal terrorist organisation, but a compartimental one. Destroy a head and you destroy the head, not much more, not much less. The body will still strangle you.

Hell, if AQ splinters, do you think that'll make them less deadly? A bomb wrapped around someone's body explodes with the same force irrelevant of the organisation behind him.

I presume you are familiar with the history of the SR Combat Organization after Gershuni was sold out?

That's a stupid example. The SR terrorist organisation crumbled because they were led by an agent of the enemy, not because Gershuni was removed. Are you proposing the next leader of AQ Iraq will be an American agent? I doubt it, you do not have the competence or pervasiveness of the Okhrana.

I think people who like him will be furious, and those who do not will not care. His killing was understandable from any perspective outside of Jebus'.

Those who do not like him are irrelevant to the point.

Martyrdom has never hurt terrorism. Nor will it ever. It'll take a few eons for the Americans to understand terrorism can not be stopped with a bullet, though, especially if you go at it half-arsed like the USA. Remember the last world leader that tried that?

Either way, the americans are justified, but capture would have been the better approach, for both an information and fairness perspective.

And another thing, "information" is the last thing you want from a terrorist.

Torture isn't just illegal and inhumane, it's also largely impractical. You think you're going to torture a martyr in giving truthful information? The "Allied Forces" have been hurt by wrongful information released under pressure before, they will again. Bit of a bearpit, that.

Zarqawi was far from incompitent, he was brutal, fanatical, and unrealistic often, but not incompitent. He was a good planner and a charismatic leader.

So you think Amman was a "good idea", that it showed "competence in leadership"?

I think not.

 

[Jebus]

Wether or not he was 'worthy' is irrelevant - I'm fairly sure Filip Dewinter, the Flemish friendly neighbourhood Nazi, also fits the description you gave there, yet if anyone were to bomb him he probably wouldn't recieve world-wide fame and glory.

The difference between him and Heydrich or Zarqawi is that those two follow through on their fantasies. That makes it okay to kill them.

Even Göring had a trail.
If the USA and the UK were able to give the nazi leaders a trail sixty years ago, and hence form a beacon against Soviet arbritariness and opression, I wonder what happened since then that nowadays redneck presidents get to decide what people it's 'okay to kill'.

If you just bomb people, no matter how criminal they are, you create an athmosphere of lawlesness and government terror. Defining wether or not people are 'worthy' of being bombed without trail is arbitrary, and could easily lead to abuse of power. Like, y'know, Saddamn Hussein did. And I guess that's not the way the US wants to steer Iraq.

Saddam gassed children and women by the thousands. We selectively kill a genocidal shit and imprison soldiers that go crazy after being attacked and loosing a few men from their platoon.

You would have to be a retard or, worse, a Leftist European to not see the difference.

The reasons are irrelevant.

It's not so much that we'd be staging a trial or even need to, it's a simple matter of him being obviously guilty. His face is on videos, there'd be no way he'd deny charges as he'd stand by his attrocities proudly, there is essentially no defence that could help him against the crimes he commited. There wouldn't need to be a mock-up of any of it, no lawyer could get him off, the trial would be little more than a formality any way it's cut... unless maybe he got a french judge.

Yes, of course - I interpreted your words wrongly.

Why exactly would capturing him make this any difference, seeing as he would just be ported to Guantanamo (or Poland, whichever is worse), which is hardly the epitome of lawfulness.

Touché.
The entire system of 'justice' the USA has in the entire situation is rotten.

 

[Duckman]

So, he is dead...

Someone else will rise from their cell and take over what he once controlled...

Will the violence end? No

All we hope now is that a mass uprising does not occur and kill many more thousands of people.

 

[Carib FMJ]

For you to beat those guys you'd have to strike at every single leader at once... No quarter, no mercy, as these are concepts they don't understand.

I mean using the word wipe them out is often misused, then again, it would be sad if it became a war of extermination... That would be a pity.

 

[Brother None]

Meh, destructive sweeps take a lot of man and willpower, I don't think the US has either. It lacks manpower because of unwillingness to deploy enough men and lack of funds, it lacks willpower because...well, it always has, just look at 'Nam.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Look at 'Nam?

The enemy was fighting for their future, on their land, for their people.

We just thought the commies would give up to the big army of democracy after we killed some hundreds of thousands.

Dissent during war is not a new thing.

 

[Brother None]

Not even vaguely what I was referring to, Mr. Horse.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

This whole Zarqawi thing has taught us one thing.










CSI is bullshit; DNA analysis doesn't take a couple of hours.

 

[Carib FMJ]

We aren't fighting a uniformed enemy and we should stop broad casting death of enemies and out troops. If they had grabbed Bin Laden, fine, but not low level men like that. We are fighting an enemy who isn't in uniform and its going to be a long, hard war, which I may end up being apart of.

A new age 'Nam. Oh, well.

 

[Brother None]

Replacements do not come out of the woodwork. They take months of consolidation, and rarely are they as influential or powerful as the original.

Heh, wow, that didn't take very long

 

[John Uskglass]

Heh, wow, that didn't take very long

He is a pseudonym. He might not even be real.

 

[Sander]

He is a pseudonym. He might not even be real.

Doubtful. And even if that's the case, the fact that someone has been nominated shows that there's a leadership capable of making the decisions, and now a figurehead to show that the movement isn't dead. Which is just as good as a real Zarqawi.

 

[John Uskglass]

Doubtful. And even if that's the case, the fact that someone has been nominated shows that there's a leadership capable of making the decisions, and now a figurehead to show that the movement isn't dead. Which is just as good as a real Zarqawi.

Only he has no face, he has not released a video, and he is either a pseudonym, not real or is some newcomer to the scene (very, very unlikely).

Seems to me that this is some kind of desperate gamble to stay relevant more then any kind of real replacement. If they where centralized enough to vote on a real replacement, they would all be dead by now.

That's a stupid example. The SR terrorist organisation crumbled because they were led by an agent of the enemy, not because Gershuni was removed. Are you proposing the next leader of AQ Iraq will be an American agent? I doubt it, you do not have the competence or pervasiveness of the Okhrana.

For five years. And Azef did not 'lead' the SR Combat Organization after Gershuni died, Savinkov did.

The Okhrana have several advantages over us I would like to point out:
They operated in their own country
They where dealing with a porous, interethnic and generally accepting terrorist organization that would not descriminate against people from different faiths (or none at all) or races
They had no rule of law to obey, let alone two different laws to obey. The stability of the state that they where supposed to help maintain was the Government's only real goal.

Also, the Okhrana was 'prevalent' but still sucky. Stolypin, the best PM in Russian history, was killed by one of their 'double agents', remember.

 

[PhredBean]

He is a pseudonym. He might not even be real.

Doubtful. And even if that's the case, the fact that someone has been nominated shows that there's a leadership capable of making the decisions, and now a figurehead to show that the movement isn't dead. Which is just as good as a real Zarqawi.

Precisely, what matters isn't whether he's real name or person or not, it's whether people will follow him, whoever he or they are.

In Washington, President George W Bush said Mujahir would be "on our list to bring to justice", during talks on Iraq with military and diplomatic planners.

Anyone else read that as "we've updated our hit-list."

 

[Brother None]

Only he has no face, he has not released a video, and he is either a pseudonym, not real or is some newcomer to the scene (very, very unlikely).

Seems to me that this is some kind of desperate gamble to stay relevant more then any kind of real replacement. If they where centralized enough to vote on a real replacement, they would all be dead by now.

What you say might be possible. Might be. Might also not be. I don't find it very likely that your version of things is true, looking at the situation and international reaction.

For five years. And Azef did not 'lead' the SR Combat Organization after Gershuni died, Savinkov did.

No he didn't. Savinkov worked as a kind of practical hand because the SRCO at this point had already suffered a lot of centrifugal forces. Azef was the leader, though, Savinkov was more like an individual action man.

The Okhrana have several advantages over us I would like to point out

I don't care, all I care about is that your situation in Iraq is so wildly different from that of the Okhrana against the SRCO that your comparison is completely null and void, and your general "terrorists organisations crumble without leadership"-theorem remains as yet unproven.

 

[John Uskglass]

What you say might be possible. Might be. Might also not be. I don't find it very likely that your version of things is true, looking at the situation and international reaction.

It's as/more likely then "OMG ZARQAWI REPLACEMENT WILL BE JUST AS BAD OMG". I mean, honestly, a psedonymned replacement within a week of his leader's death?

No he didn't. Savinkov worked as a kind of practical hand because the SRCO at this point had already suffered a lot of centrifugal forces. Azef was the leader, though, Savinkov was more like an individual action man.

That's fair enough I suppose. Stolypin was also competent enough to introduce refoms to counter thier popularity among the politically and economically alienated.

I don't care, all I care about is that your situation in Iraq is so wildly different from that of the Okhrana against the SRCO that your comparison is completely null and void, and your general "terrorists organisations crumble without leadership"-theorem remains as yet unproven.

I'm not saying that it will crumble, I'm saying that it will hiccup during what is possibly the most important period in the history of the modern Iraqi government.

 

[Brother None]

It's as/more likely then "OMG ZARQAWI REPLACEMENT WILL BE JUST AS BAD OMG". I mean, honestly, a psedonymned replacement within a week of his leader's death?

Nothing unlikely about a pseudonym-using replacement after a week. It depends on a number of factors that none of us can have any clear picture of.

I'm not saying that it will crumble, I'm saying that it will hiccup during what is possibly the most important period in the history of the modern Iraqi government.

True, very true, mostly about this being an important point in the history of the modern Iraqi government. How much this hiccup will prevent the broad AQ organisation, let alone more independent terrorist cells, from further fucking up the country remains to be seen, though.

I still don't see the US' half-arsed effort in Iraq bringing any good anytime soon.