Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed.

[Xenocrates]

On radio 4 just now:

Zarqawi was made the face of the insurgency by US propaganda. They did this in order to demonise their enemy in Iraq. They wanted to paint all other groups out of the picture except for the maniac Islamist faction for the purpose of reducing hostility and making the US look like protectors rather than invaders. Naive beyond words.

This had two important negative results. The first is that the propaganda leaked back into the US and influenced public opinion, which is ilegal. The second is that US decision-makers started to fall for the BS as well.

There are many posters here that seem to believe that the war is about Islamic terrorism. Despite many many realistic posts, mostly coming from outside the US, 'the Zarqawi is the insurgency' nonsense is widely believed. Propaganda works, but respect to those that didn't fall for it.

The programme was 'The World tonight' and you can listen on the BBC website if you wish:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/worldtonight/index.shtml

 

[RedWolf]

Were the child's parents/guardians unaware that someone with a $25mil bounty on his head and actively being hunted by the largest military in the world (one that dropped bombs on civilian houses when hunting high-profile targets before) was in the house?

If parents take a child swimming in a pond full of alligators, I don't blame the alligators for eating the child.

And btw - we got Sheik Abd-al-Rahman? Man, the news keeps getting better!!

Fair enough - the kid has bad parents. But did he/she deserve to die for being born to dumb people?

You can certainly blame share.. but it doesn't make the other party completely blameless - or make what did any less disgusting.

 

[Zarn]

Al-Zarqawi being dead is not a good thing in itself (it never is for anyone), but his death does bring an end to his chaos (that is a good thing). I would have liked capturing him alive, but I won't lose sleep over his death.

 

[MobBoss]

Al-Zarqawi being dead is not a good thing in itself (it never is for anyone), but his death does bring an end to his chaos (that is a good thing). I would have liked capturing him alive, but I won't lose sleep over his death.

Which brings up another point I was discussing at work today. As we knew where Zarqawi was for sure this time, why was the option to send in a couple of planes to wipe him out the desired action as opposed to surrounding the house with troops and trying to take him alive?

I think someone somewhere made the active decision that a dead Zarqawi was far better for us than one in jail awaiting trial ala Sadaam Hussain.

 

[CurtSibling]

The insurgency will end after we leave, because thats when the civil war will start.

Civil war is underway from what I can see.

And I have seen M1 Abrams tanks been blown up.

It is time for us to level bomb them and leave!

.

 

[CurtSibling]

Which brings up another point I was discussing at work today. As we knew where Zarqawi was for sure this time, why was the option to send in a couple of planes to wipe him out the desired action as opposed to surrounding the house with troops and trying to take him alive?

I think someone somewhere made the active decision that a dead Zarqawi was far better for us than one in jail awaiting trial ala Sadaam Hussain.

For once, I am inclined to agree with you.

.

 

[FriendlyFire]

1- ironicly the video Zarqawi made to "taunt" the US who had annunced his death earlier gave his location away.

2- I would have prefered they took him alive and "squeezed all the intell out of him. But dead is dead.

3- Hopefully this wiil give both a boost to Iraq forces and breathing space needed.

 

[Elrohir]

So somewhere al-Zargawi is right now coming to grips with the fact that the thing about the 20 virgins is actually a pile of rubbish.

It's supposed to be 72. And I imagine he's realized that by now.

Zarqawi was made the face of the insurgency by US propaganda. They did this in order to demonise their enemy in Iraq. They wanted to paint all other groups out of the picture except for the maniac Islamist faction for the purpose of reducing hostility and making the US look like protectors rather than invaders. Naive beyond words.

There are two main groups of terrorists in Iraq: People who mourn the loss of Saddam, mostly former Ba'athists; and religious extremeists, radical Muslims. I don't believe anyone has said they are one and the same.

As for making Zarqawi the "face of the insurgency....in order to demonise their enemy in Iraq", that's rubbish. We didn't have to demonize the enemy; they did it themselves by blowing up, shooting, and beheading civilians.

This had two important negative results. The first is that the propaganda leaked back into the US and influenced public opinion, which is ilegal. The second is that US decision-makers started to fall for the BS as well.

Why would it be illegal for the USG to influence public opinion? Unless they are knowingly using false facts, lying, there is nothing illegal about it. Politicians influence the public every day; if that was a crime every politican in America would have long since been shot for their widespread crimesprees.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Which brings up another point I was discussing at work today. As we knew where Zarqawi was for sure this time, why was the option to send in a couple of planes to wipe him out the desired action as opposed to surrounding the house with troops and trying to take him alive?

I think someone somewhere made the active decision that a dead Zarqawi was far better for us than one in jail awaiting trial ala Sadaam Hussain.

As oppossed to capturing him aive and squeezing "Intell" from him ?
Where talking about a head here, who probably had detail information on cells, tactics as well as ways of funding the insurgency.

I wonder thou. IF the US publicy announced hes death from wounds. But has kept zarqwai alive somewhere and once they have done with him simply depose of him quietly. (least they create a Idolised Martar (sp?)

 

[Sh3kel]

Which brings up another point I was discussing at work today. As we knew where Zarqawi was for sure this time, why was the option to send in a couple of planes to wipe him out the desired action as opposed to surrounding the house with troops and trying to take him alive?

I think someone somewhere made the active decision that a dead Zarqawi was far better for us than one in jail awaiting trial ala Sadaam Hussain.

There comes a time in military decision making in which you either go for a golden opportunity to capture an enemy officer for intelligence at great risk to your own men, or an equally golden opportunity to eliminate said officer and prevent any plans he did have laid out from ever being executed due to a sharp cut in the centralist chain of the command of the enemy.

If no SPECOPS teams were available at the time to capture him and there was reasonable doubt as to wether he would remain on location for much longer, the intelligence grab becomes unviable and you go for the kill.

Not to mention by killing him you prevent him from turning the court into a stage for his insane rhetoric which is in fact nothing more than cleverly disguised messages to his followers, and the added risk of attempted rescues that would leave hundreds dead.

Zarqwai was a waste of perfectly good oxygen. He isn't wasting oxygen anymore.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Ok. I was going to ask 'Who voted for 'bad thing''...

Click on the poll totals on the right side of your screen and if it is a public poll you will be able to see results like this.

 

[Xenocrates]

There are two main groups of terrorists in Iraq: People who mourn the loss of Saddam, mostly former Ba'athists; and religious extremeists, radical Muslims. I don't believe anyone has said they are one and the same.

Why would it be illegal for the USG to influence public opinion? Unless they are knowingly using false facts, lying, there is nothing illegal about it. Politicians influence the public every day; if that was a crime every politican in America would have long since been shot for their widespread crimesprees.

You know as well as anyone (I assume) that propaganda isn't about lies. It's about image and perception. Firstly you use the word 'terrorists' as if that's actually what they are. That's precisely the reason why Zaqawi's group was publicised. He was a terrorist and so the whole resistance movement is. The document discussed on the radio 4 programme said precisely that this was the image that they wanted to be associated with the resistance. It looks lke it worked on some! It was a strategy designed to do one thing alone without any regard for the consequences. That thing is split the resistance and the consequences are that the US public will believe that Muslim/Iraqi=terrorist or a long time to come.

The 'blowback' has already happened in terms of the domestic opposition to the Dubai ports company buying some US ports. Painting Muslims as terrorists, which is what they have done, will have serious consequences for everyone. It's not politicians doing this, it's the US military and the CIA.

If he was an important figure he would have been captured and interogated, but he was one thorn in your side out of many. His significance was purposely exagerated, as the months to come will prove.

 

[Silver Marmot]

Freedom is on the march!

 

[amadeus]

So somewhere al-Zargawi is right now coming to grips with the fact that the thing about the 20 virgins is actually a pile of rubbish.

Actually, I see him getting gay Jewish virgins.

"Oy! I just adore purple drapes. And the sale! So cheap they were!"

 

[VoodooAce]

Which brings up another point I was discussing at work today. As we knew where Zarqawi was for sure this time, why was the option to send in a couple of planes to wipe him out the desired action as opposed to surrounding the house with troops and trying to take him alive?

I think someone somewhere made the active decision that a dead Zarqawi was far better for us than one in jail awaiting trial ala Sadaam Hussain.

I'd imagine that they weighed the options, bomb or go for the capture, and went with the surest one. Personally, I'd have loved to see him tried, convicted and locked away for a few decades because this would probably be the option he'd have least liked.

If given the choice, he'd probably have rather had it this way. Certainly his compatriots would rather have had it this way for him, rather than capture and imprisonment.

Click on the poll totals on the right side of your screen and if it is a public poll you will be able to see results like this.

Thanks. Learn something new every day.

 

[Elrohir]

You know as well as anyone (I assume) that propaganda isn't about lies. It's about image and perception. Firstly you use the word 'terrorists' as if that's actually what they are. That's precisely the reason why Zaqawi's group was publicised. He was a terrorist and so the whole resistance movement is. The document discussed on the radio 4 programme said precisely that this was the image that they wanted to be associated with the resistance. It looks lke it worked on some! It was a strategy designed to do one thing alone without any regard for the consequences. That thing is split the resistance and the consequences are that the US public will believe that Muslim/Iraqi=terrorist or a long time to come.

The 'blowback' has already happened in terms of the domestic opposition to the Dubai ports company buying some US ports. Painting Muslims as terrorists, which is what they have done, will have serious consequences for everyone. It's not politicians doing this, it's the US military and the CIA.

And you don't consider Zarqawi to have been a terrorist? He's the textbook definition of one; he's a man who inspired terror through indiscriminate slaughter. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands, many of them innocent civilians, including young children. That is not propaganda, that is the truth. Do you deny it?

If he was an important figure he would have been captured and interogated, but he was one thorn in your side out of many. His significance was purposely exagerated, as the months to come will prove.

How do you know this? How do we know that there were no US assets in the area capable of reaching it, and securing him before he got away? And what's to say we should have captured him? We captured Saddam, and all we got is a media circus; we don't need two.

My view of this is fairly similer to that of Rep. Jack Kingston:

"One of the most brutal, heinous, and horrendous terrorists was killed last night when the U.S. Armed Forces delivered 500-pounds of justice to Iraq’s ‘Prince of Al-Qaeda’ on behalf of Nicholas Berg, Jack Armstrong, Ken Bigley, Jack Hensley and the thousands of others who were beheaded, tortured, and killed by Al-Zarqawi and his henchmen."

 

[malclave]

Ok. I was going to ask 'Who voted for 'bad thing'', but I see the post directly above and have to assume that the other two....there are currently 3....were also in jest.

I almost voted "bad thing". I would have definitely preferred that he be captured, as that would have had several further benefits to the Coalition forces and to the Iraqi government. It does make sense to me that the people in charge of the mission wanted to make sure he did not get away, as moving ground forces in to capture him would take time and risk allowing him to escape (again).

However, it's definitely a good thing that he was removed from action.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Terrorists are not driven by people like him - they are driven by ideas (just like us) so this do nothing to help Iraq.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Terrorists are not driven by people like him - they are driven by ideas (just like us) so this do nothing to help Iraq.

If people see that committing heinous crimes like slowly sawing off the heads of innocent civilians only ends you up on a short path to quickly becoming dead yourself, and because of that decide not to become terrorists as it is too dangerous, then yes, this will do something to help Iraq.

I was under the impression you were generally against any type of violence or murder for almost any reason and were a supporter of the law (link). This man was a violent murderer and well outside the boundaries of any type of civilized law. So why would you see his demise as being anything but positive?

 

[Rambuchan]

WTF are you talking about?

I meant to say that killing one guy does not make much of a difference when there are millions to take his place.

Let's read what you wrote again...

Oh Goody.

1 down. 1,483,245 more to go....

since it took 2 500 pound bombs for just this one, do we have enough bombs?

Now let's remember that you have previously argued that killing all muslims would be a good solution to all this violence.

Did you, or did you not, once say this? It's a simple "Yes" or "No" answer, to a yes or no question here.

You really need to back off for a while since you are coming across a bit bird-brained.

You sir, are remembered over here for two things above all else:

a) Let's kill all Muslims to stop the War or Terror.
b) Let's allow Ken Lay to pay his way out of jail and walk free, with no constraints to carry on committing such crimes.

And YOU are calling ME a bird-brain? Rich!