Just one unmentioned thought on al-Zarqawi...

he was a bad piece of business, for sure, but dropping a bomb on him is not justice.

It is assassination, which is simply murder. Murder justified in the eyes of many, but murder nonetheless.

Killing may or may not be justified at times, I'm not arguing that now, but crimes like Zarqawi's demand justice, not just more killing. Bring them out in the light of day through a trial and find a punishment that fits.

This administration believes in death. Death solves everything. Death is a good thing-- it's good when the other guy dies, and it's good when our people die killing them.

A culture of death, not life, or justice.

Better to have captured him alive and let him rot in jail for the rest of his life... Ultimately, however, all of this is pointless. Bush's folly of invading Iraq is what brought al-Qaeda into Iraq in the first place. We have created a nightmare into which we are dumping thousands of lives-- both Iraqi and American-- in vain.

100% spot on!

The world is a better place without him and philosophically speaking, you won't find a person here who thinks that if he never existed that the world would be a better place, but how many hopeless cases with nothing to look forward in life to other than death will see his end as a possible 'noble end.' Killing these people, monsters they may appear to be, (especially their leaders) just makes more enemies.

Religious fanatics of all kinds feed off of persecution and seldom are forced to reap the results of their insane actions. He is the kind of guy that I hoped the Supermax would be made for...someone who needs a permanent time out to think about what they have done.

It is regrettable that we got invlolved in all this stuff. But since then Zarqawi has been killing our family members and innocent civilians. Good riddance. Sure, it would have been better to capture him. But he likely would have escaped and killed more of our troops and civilians.

BTW-It's ridiculous how people say this is a bad or neutral thing. Granted this war wasn't all that well thought out or maybe even warranted but I support killing any terrorist who has PURPOSELY killed hundreds of civilians. Bush and that gang aren't "terrorists" because they accidentally kill civilians in the actions of war. Not saying they're off scott free, but at least they're not terrorists.

sincerly believe bush and his 'gang' aren't terrorists in every sense of the word-
He may HIDE behind the words "collerateral damage"- but he knows FULL WELL as do those who 'advise' him that women, children, old people, the weakest, the poorest and the most vunerable citizens in Iraq, are being SLAUGHTERED by his decree- and he has the unmitigated gall to 'feign' righteousness-
that you give him 'license' by saying that he doesn't DIRECTLY TARGET civillians, yet he authorizies strikes where there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that innocents will be killed is parseing this mans evil to make him seem something less than he is.

Bush is a terrorist of the worst kind- wearing the flag of this country, under the banner of 'freedom' and 'democracy' and 'god'- and using the lives of loyal American men and women to carry out his evil intentions.-

Do you REALLY believe he is anything other than the flip side of Zarquai?

That is the sad state of the human experience, and anyone who thinks killing Al Zarqawi will bring peace and order to the region is sadly mistaken. If they knew where he was, why didn't they capture him and put him on trial?

Boils down to that.

I'm not arguing against justice or a fair trial, but there are legitimate circumstances where you have to resort to other means. This was one of them.

Obviously, if Zarqawi had surrendered himself or been caught in a spider hole like Saddam, the situation is different. But you have to play the cards you've been dealt, and the chances were extremely unlikely that he was going to go easily or stop committing the kinds of acts he was committing. IMO, justice has been dealt.

to BushAmerica.

capture him? It doesn't sound like one of those "we know he's in this building for the next 2 hours" deals, but you never know. Seems like our "cowboy" is always shoot first, question later.

They just dropped a bomb on some people and claimed they killed him. So they can go toot their horns and pound their chests. I wouldn't be surprised if he was killed 3 years ago, but they just kept up making these stories. Just like bin laden and the rest.

They will make up all this stuff just because they can.

Odd that they flattened a whole block but left his face untouched.

He's been smarting off to Al Qaeda and was "scheduled for martyrdom".

This is the 4th report that we've killed him.

Something smells funny about this.

GMTA.

largest embassy with leaving it all behind in mind.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14660294.htm

(excerpting 4 paragraphs)

The construction project is larger than that of any U.S. embassy built on foreign soil. In 2004, the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations said the U.S. Embassy in China was the largest embassy construction project, but at a mere 10 acres and five buildings, it isn’t comparable to what is going up here.

...

But it’s hard keeping a 104-acre complex rising on the banks of the Tigris River hidden. Anyone who cares to know can easily see four giant construction cranes towering over the river at the largest such project ever undertaken by the United States — a symbol of American presence that will last well into the future.

When the complex is completed by June 2007, it will be an American oasis in the heavily fortified Green Zone, away from the fear and lack of services that permeate the rest of Baghdad. Among the 21 buildings will be a recreation center to rival any in the United States with, among other amenities, a pool, gym, food court, beauty salon and, of course, a recreational area that will be called the American Club.

Baghdad may have little potable water and only a few hours of electricity a day, but the embassy complex will have its own water treatment facilities and generator.

not care about justice just so long as they get revenge against anyone deemed a criminal. Reguardless if a trial was held or not, look at how many still call the death sentence justice even though facts show innocent people were on death row and gasp, some might have already been executed, we will never know as the state seals all prison and court records after a person has been executed.

We are no better then the Roman empire, only insted of killing christens for entertainment we kill brown people.

as he demolished Soledad on CNN this morning.

They see it as the solution for everything. Special forces were originally dispatched to Iraq to take out Saddam. Death as solution. And they are spinning the killing of al-Zarqawi as having turned the tide in Iraq. Why not capture him and question him? Don't they want to know what he knew? And wouldn't justice be a more satisfactory outcome for the Iraqi people? I'm afraid that I can't share their optimism, nor their pleasure in yet more deaths in Iraq. This hasn't solved a thing.:-(

It is rumored that Osama has given orders to shoot him if it appears the US is about to capture him. He has vowed to not be taken alive.

They made no attempt with al-Zarqwai. I have my doubts.:shrug:

You capture him and you have to look at a legal process against someone that is beyond guilty. Look at how Milosevic was making fools out of the prosecutors of the Hague. Some say they had him killed because the trial was going so badly for the prosecution.

Look at the Saddam trial.

I mean guilt of people like this is not in question. Yet there is serious problems with the justice systems of actually carrying through with a guilty verdict. Look at Zacharias Moussouti. He admitted to being involved with 9/11. He said he felt sorry he wasn't on one of the planes. He told the jury that he hoped America would be destroyed. Yet it took 5 years to convict him and put him in jail.

This is why many in our military are opting for the "just kill them now" option.

And I understand your reasoning about bringing him to trial. It would probably have been another dog-and-pony-show, like Saddam's is turning out to be, and Moussouti's sure was. And I also understand the problems inherent in the justice system, especially for the trial of such a high profile case.:-(

But my point was that it seems that they would want to learn what he knew, that this would actually help diffuse the violence, which I agree that his death will not. It wouldn't be easy, since he would obviously be uncooperative, but they did get information from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, though the CIA had to kidnap his children to do it.:shrug:

has it not solved anything, it has fueled the vigilante 'wild west' justice seekers- (a woman and child was in that building too, but, hey she should have 'known better right?')

It also only serves to promote the use of terrorism (what would you call dropping two bombs like that on a home, without warning, and hoping like 'hell' they had the 'right' target).

What is terrorism if not exactly what was just carried out on a street in a town north of Bagdad?

The ends justify the means???? That is precicly what suicide bombers are taught to think-

We are one step closer to nothing-

Vengence, killing and 'collerateral damage' aren't anything I celebrate- regardless of who is doing it.

peace,
blu

obviously doesn't agree with us, nor do many members of DU.:shrug:

But I agree that this will only serve to incite more violence. Death begets more death, and just because it's our side that's doing the killing and the intended victim was no doubt a despicable murderer, this solves nothing. It's still terrorism, as you say, no matter who is doing the killing. And, as with the Israeli targeted missile strikes on Gaza, we can expect more violence as retribution. This is exactly how suicide bombers think, that killing is the only way to send their message.;(

If you remember, they attempted the same thing to assassinate Saddam, but had received either wrong or old information, and blew up buildings and killed innocent Iraqis for nothing. What does this say to the Iraqi people, or the world, for that matter, about how America values life?;(

Just now, CNN is saying that Zarqawi survived the initial strike and that there was no child in the building, though there were three women, six innocent deaths in all. How many more would be too many? How many more are enough?;(

Peace to you, as well.
Rhi:banghead:

Just think of all the people the 8th Air Force murdered in Europe 1942-45...

In world war 2, we carpet bombed Nazi cities without any care if the bombs landed on a school, hospital, or church. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

What this is called, is war. And during war, people die. This has been the way civilization has disputed conflicts for thousands of years. And this will go on for thousands more.

tell me EXACTLY when, and cite me where the united states of america with the approval of congress has actually OFFICIALLY declared WAR on the country of IRAQ?????

We justify all sorts of atrocities, illegal actions and screwed up SHIT by saying "well, we ARE at war" and then point back to actual DECLARED WARS- to 'justify' the actions being undertaken today-

If we constantly look at what we did in the past, and excuse what we do TODAY and TOMORROW based on what we did 'back then'- doesn't that mean we simply don't LEARN anything from our past??? Are we forever doomed to repeat what clearly does not work- (the war to end all wars- is only a truth, if you twist it to mean we will always BE at war, so it is war without end)

"This has been the way civilization has disputed conflicts for thousands of years. And this will go on for thousands more."

I walk down the road, there is a hole, I fall in. The next day I walk down a road I fall in. For years I walk down a road, there is a hole and I fall in. One day I walk down a road, and see the hole, and decide not to just fall in. Perhaps I walk around the hole, or build a bridge, or take the time to fill it in.

Can't we learn a better way? or are we so stupid that we refuse to even notice anymore???

Sorry to jump down your throat- you are simply voicing a tired truth- but it doesn't HAVE to stay that way does it? If it does, lets just have that nuclear finale, and save a lot of people much suffering.

I do not agree with the Iraq war. I do not agree with President Bush. But I refuse to blame our troops for anything. I cannot see myself insulting our troops. My uncle died in Vietnam. My grandfather fought in Europe during WW2. My father was in the Navy. And right now I have a cousin in the army and another thinking about joining.

And you want me to not support the victories made by our military? You expect me to go against what my family sacrificed for?

Sure I would love for there to be world peace. But I have given that hope up a long time ago. I believe it is more of a fantasy. There is not going to be world peace, at least not in our lifetime.

Like George Orwell said, pacifism is pro-fascist. If there is nothing that you believe is worth fighting for, then you are not a supporter of freedom and democracy. Our founding fathers willingly declared war on their own government. And many people died. Why? For freedom and democracy. If our founding fathers had been pacifists, would they have succeeded? No. We would still be under British rule.

And yeah, yeah... I know people like Ghandi were successful. But how long would someone like Ghandi last against the Nazis? They'd step on him and wipe him out without a second thought.

from a long line of warriors, dating back to the revolution in this country- alone.
There has never been a war that I have not had a fore-bearer actively involved in, right up to todays current 'war'- and there are many gravestones in various places, which bear the names of my fallen ancestors.

I don't give a shit what George Orwell said- I have never said that there is nothing I believe in that would be worth fighting for- nor would I! There are many ways of 'fighting' that do NOT involve killing- especially 'arms length' mindless killing.

Yeah, Yeah Yeah, Gandhi DID manage to teach and change many people- So did Martin Luther King Jr.- and NO- they never killed anyone in their 'fight'- and YES- they gave their lives for what they believed in.
And their TRUTH- and NEW WAY of 'approaching the same hell hole' didn't DIE with them.-

We can pile body after body after body upon each other in Iraq- and we will NEVER end the practice of using violence and murder to bring about a LASTING peace.- Can you not understand that?

I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS- wholeheartedly- what better way to really support them, then to work to make a world where they are NEVER asked to use deadly force upon other people, or to be used by those whose motives are NOT pure to be killed by others who do-

I support my Fire Department too- and I would never dream of going around encouraging people to start fires so my Firefighter friends and relatives can demonstrate their ability to 'fight fires'-
And I will continue to encourage people to live in ways that reduce the possibility of fires breaking out- I guess you think Smokey the Bear, must be a 'traitor' and a fool too eh?

Gandhi had the courage of his convictions- Peace takes great courage, and self control- that is why it has been so elusive. We humans, (myself among them) instinctually want our 'revenge' we want to 'give back' as 'good as we got' and then some.
But where has that brought us all?

Time for a change.
And it needs to start within each one of us.

You want a FASCIST STATE? live in fear- live believing force, aggression and power are your best tools to control the masses- and enjoy yourself while you can, because they'll always be someone waiting to take your pedestal.

The way I see the world, there is always someone willing to take the rights of the people away. There is always someone willing to destroy democracy. There will always be enemies to freedom and democracy...foreign and domestic. And we need to fight against those enemies on all fronts and by all means.

If you are not willing to fight and die for your rights, someone will come along eventually and take them from you. Freedom is a price paid with blood. Going back to the revolution, the civil war, the world wars... they were all fights for freedom. And without those wars, the tyrants would have easily won.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stewart Mill

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson

to see things from very different angles. If you are 'right'- you need not fear that I will kill you in order to ensure my 'perspective' of how we are to live triumphs over yours. But you will always need to be watching your back, and killing others before they kill you. If you are 'content' to go on living that way, and raise your children to desire nothing better than that, I feel sad for you-
People far more intelligent and well spoken than me, have voiced the NEED- the essential reality that force, killing, and domination will never produce a lasting peace- or a world where people are truly free- You are not free from fear that you will have your rights taken away from you are you? Are you free to 'act' or 're-act' to that which others do???
Is that freedom?

Our fore-fathers were smart men. Most were far smarter than anyone who comes close to being in positions of leadership today- But they also lived in a world before nuclear, chemical, biological and all manner of twisted weaponry existed. Our founding fathers, didn't fight their 'war' from the saftey of oval offices, and 'secrect government rooms'- they put their own lives right out there on the line- Therein is the most profound difference between our struggle for independence from England (a feat that defies logic) and the efforts of the 'insurgents' of any nation, fighting for what they believe is THEIR right to live as they see fit-

Our first president could have been king- he WAS in battle, and endured the reality of war- I can't help but wonder why we don't demand that our 'Presidents' not be the first people to lead the call to war- and if they fall, they fall- How quick would we be to run to war then do you think????

War doesn't prove who's right- only who is left. And sometimes the winner, is simply the most unethical, bloodthirsty, cruel and violent of the bunch- Survival of the 'fittest' will leave the earth with strong warriors- eventually even they will fall- it is life based on death, and domination.

peace-
blu

Even if any of the people now operating in Iraq had any connection with the events of 9/11, the USS Cole or any of the other strikes against Americans (which is not a strong connection, to be sure), the Bush administration responded to criminal acts not with capture and prosecution of the criminals, but rather an invasion of a nation and its people.

Now they've morphed what should all along been a criminal investigation into a "war," complete with a "war president" and "wartime security measures." The saddest thing is that even people on DU are calling this bullshit a "war," but without quotation marks.

It seems we are warping the definition of war. Whether a war is justificed or not, it doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a war.

Websters dictionary defines a war as:
"A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

It says nothing about it must being legally declared or justified.

is exactly what this administration has done with the "war on terror," for example. Now that there is an ill-defined "enemy" (a loose connection of worldwide terrorists without uniforms or an embassy), we have changed the rules of engagement from the requirement that the People, through Congress, declare war, into a process whereby the President was granted extraordinary powers to go against the international community and his own best intelligence and commit this act. Vietnam was an intermediate step in this "war when I want it" business, as early US combatants were called "advisers" while the CIA did their nefarious work and the cold-war crooks escalated us into the full-blown mess.

My point is that this "war on terror" is as bogus as the "war on drugs." To commit the military resources of the United States to this, at the same time dismantling the very structures that make up the ideals of our country, is to engage the very basest fears of our citizens in war, rather than the highest ideals.

people will want to hear- but I believe it is truth anyway- putting a 25million dollar bounty on his head- or anyones head, is pretty blatant evidence that it is not 'justice' america seeks- (unless you believe in 'vigilante justice'-) but death. Annihilation.

While I personally don't approve of what al-Zarqawi is said to have done, and the WORDS which he spoke during his lifetime- the same could be said for my view of bush- Would i advocate or applaud 'justice' being meeted out to bush in the same way? Absolutely not-

Justice, isn't something that we can 'deliver' to anyone- or 'bring' to anyone- (as bush likes to so often claim) You cannot bring someone, or deliver something which you yourself do not possess- and bush is NOT a man who lives by the rules and constraints of TRUE 'justice'-


I have no doubt, that those deluded fools who flew aircraft into buildings, and took the lives of innocent civilians, believed, in their own twisted way, that THEY were doing something 'just'- as THEY perceived 'justice' to be.-

When everyone makes up their own rules, and ignores those which are uncomfortable, or cumbersome, or keep you from getting what you want- there is chaos, and rampant mindless destruction- just like what we are living with on a daily basis today- ESPECIALLY in countries where we are 'importing' our brand of 'democracy- and justice'.

If they knew where he was to air-strike, could they not have surrounded the place and captured him? And what if he had not been in the house...what would have been the "official report"?

They say it was in daylight and if we tried to move troops in, he would have been alerted and escaped. The bombs come so fast that it hits before anyone even knows what happened.

To confuse the term "justice" with summary killing is part of the plan to dismantle the culture of fairness for which the US was once known. Along with scary immigrants and fundamental religion, it all serves to keep us so fearful that all we can do to feel better is go shopping.

This killer won't get another chance.

Trying and jailing him may have been cleaner and perhaps more useful, but it also leaves open a huge chance of him escaping in the attempt.

Now, if we're not legitimately at war...

How is it possible to verify who was killed?

I'm sure he had plenty of well-armed security on the ground. If bombing him saves the lives of some of our troops, then it's worth it.

:shrug:

I don't want to get into this discussion. I also believe there are details. Assasination of a political leader may be "more" illegal than just your garden variety human like Zarqawi.

However, the question still remains. Did we really need an entire World War, to get rid of a few bad leaders? Did we really need to kill and destroy an entire country to get rid of Saddam. I'm being fascetious here because we all know the intent was never to rid anyone of anybody, but something else entirely.

Damnit I wish we had a media. It's very difficult to do anything when sandbagged and only having Palasts and DU's for information sources.

if you remember. This was huge news, at the time, that they had blown up a building where he was supposed to be, but they never found him. Either they had wrong or old information and innocent Iraqi people died there, as well, though they failed to accomplish their goal.:-(

And what is illegal is the assassination of a head of state. I believe that Gerald Ford signed this into law. But Zarqwai is considered a terrorist, so is fair game. And, according to my friend who went to West Point, Saddam was also fair game because he was the self-proclaimed head of the Iraqi army.:shrug:

But I agree with your questions and share your frustration. This is a volatile region, and it takes very little to ignite violence here. And, once it's set off, as in Israel/Palestine, it's impossible to stop. And I'm also afraid that's what we have done here, ignited another region. Is this better than if we'd left it alone? That's my opinion, just based on sheer numbers of the dead, and now Americans are also dying here, and for what?:shrug:

in 1996, on the fifth anniversary of the "first" Gulf War, George H.W. Bush explained the reason that he didn't go into Iraq and take out Saddam when he had the chance. He said that to have done so would have "inflamed the entire region and turned the Arab world against us." Junior should have listened to his Poppy.:-(

And the MSM is certainly complicit in this, showing us gruesome pix that we don't need to see, of a dead man, and repeating White House talking points, that this signifies a "turning point" in this war. I don't agree. And since when was it acceptable to display such graphic photos shown on cable and network television, without so much as a warning? They did the same thing with Saddam's sons and you can't watch the news today without seeing the unspeakable.:-(

I am also grateful for Greg Palast and DU. Unfortunately, all most people have is the MSM for their information.:-(

but they saw how much a circus the Saddam trial has become - they do not was a second trial like that one

plus their base is much happier when the blood is obvious