D
Dave
Guest
answer quick! 
Theo
Active Member
Anyone who isn't rejoicing the death of Zarqawi is no one I wanna know.
To those who wanted to preserve the status-quo of Saddam's genocidal Republic of Fear, I say: I'm glad Zarqawi - the terrorist madman who blew up and sawed the heads off people almost indiscriminately - is not today still enjoying the safe harbor and sanctuary the Baath regime extended to him after he was injuried fighting for the Taliban.
To those who wanted Coalition forces to pull out of Iraq prematurely even though Iraqi's first elected government wants us to stay, I say: Thank the Lord we did not allow the likes of Zarqawi to force us to cut and run before the job is done. Had we listened to so-called "peace lovers," it would have meant victory for the purely evil monster named Zarqawi and would have doomed Iraq to no future. Iraqis would not be "pulling faces" in any cameras had that happened. I think Iraqis suffered enough under Saddam and deserve a new future quite unlike what Zarqawi wanted for them, but I know the "cut and run" crowd doesn't much care about anything outside their hatred for Bush and regard Iraq as just another domestic partisan issue.
To those on the George Galloway/Michael Moore Traitorous Left who regarded Zarqawi as a "minuteman" of Iraq who would "write his name in the stars" as a martyr, I say: f*** YOU, immoral swine. I know you hated today and that says it all.
To the Coalition forces who located and dropped two 500 pound bombs on the psychopathic savage barbarian, and to those Iraqis and others who gave them information to make it possible, I say: Good show!
To the Iraqi people, I say: I'll let one of your own speak for you. "CONGRATULATIONS TO IRAQ, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD ON THIS VICTORY." http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
To the degenerate, anti-American Brits, I give you this.
To those who wanted to preserve the status-quo of Saddam's genocidal Republic of Fear, I say: I'm glad Zarqawi - the terrorist madman who blew up and sawed the heads off people almost indiscriminately - is not today still enjoying the safe harbor and sanctuary the Baath regime extended to him after he was injuried fighting for the Taliban.
To those who wanted Coalition forces to pull out of Iraq prematurely even though Iraqi's first elected government wants us to stay, I say: Thank the Lord we did not allow the likes of Zarqawi to force us to cut and run before the job is done. Had we listened to so-called "peace lovers," it would have meant victory for the purely evil monster named Zarqawi and would have doomed Iraq to no future. Iraqis would not be "pulling faces" in any cameras had that happened. I think Iraqis suffered enough under Saddam and deserve a new future quite unlike what Zarqawi wanted for them, but I know the "cut and run" crowd doesn't much care about anything outside their hatred for Bush and regard Iraq as just another domestic partisan issue.
To those on the George Galloway/Michael Moore Traitorous Left who regarded Zarqawi as a "minuteman" of Iraq who would "write his name in the stars" as a martyr, I say: f*** YOU, immoral swine. I know you hated today and that says it all.
To the Coalition forces who located and dropped two 500 pound bombs on the psychopathic savage barbarian, and to those Iraqis and others who gave them information to make it possible, I say: Good show!
To the Iraqi people, I say: I'll let one of your own speak for you. "CONGRATULATIONS TO IRAQ, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD ON THIS VICTORY." http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
To the degenerate, anti-American Brits, I give you this.
Last edited:
D
Dave
Guest
It isn't too hard to understand the government that we put into place wanting us to remain there. What will happen to them when we leave and how long will we have to stay? It's just more lies to backup the initial lies that got us there in the first place.
Now understand that I am no fan of al-Zarqawi. I'm not rejoicing at his death though. I'm sure that many are clamoring to take his place and many many more to avenge his death. Are we going to kill ALL of them? If we are, how? On the other hand, maybe this will be a blow to the morale of those who would like to see the US destroyed. I don't think that the fanatical mind operates that way, but it's a nice thought that this might have the effect of causing some of those that want to destroy our way of life to seriously question whether they will achieve that goal.
As far as wanting forces to pull out prematurely I am not now nor was I ever for a "premature pullout" as I still think we should have never been there in the first place.
We aren't going to agree on anything politically but if I could do anything I would try to make you think about the way you choose your words. Genocidal Republic of Fear is the type of language that will ring true with those who believe in the Iraq invasion, but for those that are against it the words sound like more empty rhetoric. Obviously we are now in this mess and need to find a way out and I don't think that further division is the answer. Surely you must see a difference between George Galloway and Michael Moore? It seems strange to me that you say the left see this as a partisan issue when you yourself define it as such. Doesn't matter though. You're free to have that opinion.
How I see it. We can't turn back the clock. We are in this mess now and have to figure out how to get out of it and what is best for the future, first of our country and then of the world. That's my opinion anyway.
Now understand that I am no fan of al-Zarqawi. I'm not rejoicing at his death though. I'm sure that many are clamoring to take his place and many many more to avenge his death. Are we going to kill ALL of them? If we are, how? On the other hand, maybe this will be a blow to the morale of those who would like to see the US destroyed. I don't think that the fanatical mind operates that way, but it's a nice thought that this might have the effect of causing some of those that want to destroy our way of life to seriously question whether they will achieve that goal.
As far as wanting forces to pull out prematurely I am not now nor was I ever for a "premature pullout" as I still think we should have never been there in the first place.
We aren't going to agree on anything politically but if I could do anything I would try to make you think about the way you choose your words. Genocidal Republic of Fear is the type of language that will ring true with those who believe in the Iraq invasion, but for those that are against it the words sound like more empty rhetoric. Obviously we are now in this mess and need to find a way out and I don't think that further division is the answer. Surely you must see a difference between George Galloway and Michael Moore? It seems strange to me that you say the left see this as a partisan issue when you yourself define it as such. Doesn't matter though. You're free to have that opinion.
How I see it. We can't turn back the clock. We are in this mess now and have to figure out how to get out of it and what is best for the future, first of our country and then of the world. That's my opinion anyway.
Theo
Active Member
Dave said:
Excuse me? International organizations monitored the Iraqi elections and declared them legitimate, and have the support of the United Nations. Somehow you missed Iraqis voting in numbers way beyond anyone's expectations despite the death threats Zarqawi and the insurgency put on them on election day?
Yet you never posted what your policy with regard to Iraq would have been in 2002.
Genocide was a fact to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs in Iraq. If you don't care about genocide that's your choice. The USA signed the Genocide Convention and all signatories are obligated to do something, if possible, where genocide is taking place.
"Republic of Fear" I used because it's the title of a book written by Kanan Makiya. That's an Iraqi. It's an important book. Apparently you've never read it because you didn't pick up on my reference. People who can't be bothered to read up on matters should not presume they know what the f*** they're talking about.
If you have a problem with the language I use you have a problem with the Iraqi people. I am in solidarity with them and I take my cues from them when I choose to describe Iraq under the Baathists as a genocidal Republic of Fear.
Michael Moore is the one who called the insurgency of Iraq the "minutemen" of Iraq. Galloway gave similar support when he praised all the "operations" of the insurgency and how they're writing their names in the stars as martyrs. Moore and Galloway are both, by their own words and unambiguously, on the side of the insurgency. I'd say Galloway is the worse of the two since Galloway personally enriched himself via the corruption of the Oil for Food program that was supposed to help the Iraqi people and not asswipes like himself, and Gallaway frequently flies to various totalitarian regimes to give praise to the dictators he admires. Michael Moore considers America an "evil empire" (as he says at the end of one of his movies), but Galloway seems to want neo-Stalinist regimes throughout the world to oppose America and has said he wishes the whole world could live under someone like Castro. In any case, Galloway and Moore are both on the side of the enemy and really it's gotten pathetic having to argue with fools who admire such scum.
Last edited:
D
Dave
Guest
You seem to be obsessed with an us against them mentality, "them" being anyone that disagrees with you. I tried to find some common ground but it seems pointless.
If you are really in solidarity with the Iraqi people then you should go there and do what you can. I promise to write.
If you are really in solidarity with the Iraqi people then you should go there and do what you can. I promise to write.
LetsGoDevils
Bannedtastic
Theo said:
Puddle
Banned
well i thought it was kind of sad that a kid died in the bombing, but with a guy like al-zarqawi, you're not going to think twice to pull the trigger.
I think morrissey realizees al-zarqawi is true swine and better off dead, how can anyone think otherwise? well dead or captured/put on trial. hell both are the same--life is over as soon as you are in prison. but this won't stop morrissey from putting down Bush, in which there are many reasons to do so.
in other news...anyone see the footage of the palestinian girl crying the death of her entire family--caused by a stray Israeli missile that hit them when they were having a picnic on a beach (I saw it on BBC World News on PBS, not sure if the US news showed the footage). that shit happens all the time there. I'm really pissed at the israeli government. I mean suicide bombers by definition target civilians...but for what should be a respected government, one which Western nations support and give billions of dollars, Israel is very sloppy in hitting non-civilain targets...Furthermore it's Israeli government's stubborness that is causing many problems there. i mean some of the decisions they have made over the years. what the f*** were you thinking? Behave like a government for f*** sake.
of course the image of the girl crying was enough for Hamas to call off the, although weak, truce. What the f*** were you trying to hit on a beach for christ's sake? A bunch of "eye for eye" mentality there. that's a huge problem. if hamas kills israelis, the israle goes and kills palestinians, and back and forth. you almost want to laugh at how irrational human behavior could be. but the laughter is just there to hide the anger--it's far from being real laughter.
I think morrissey realizees al-zarqawi is true swine and better off dead, how can anyone think otherwise? well dead or captured/put on trial. hell both are the same--life is over as soon as you are in prison. but this won't stop morrissey from putting down Bush, in which there are many reasons to do so.
in other news...anyone see the footage of the palestinian girl crying the death of her entire family--caused by a stray Israeli missile that hit them when they were having a picnic on a beach (I saw it on BBC World News on PBS, not sure if the US news showed the footage). that shit happens all the time there. I'm really pissed at the israeli government. I mean suicide bombers by definition target civilians...but for what should be a respected government, one which Western nations support and give billions of dollars, Israel is very sloppy in hitting non-civilain targets...Furthermore it's Israeli government's stubborness that is causing many problems there. i mean some of the decisions they have made over the years. what the f*** were you thinking? Behave like a government for f*** sake.
of course the image of the girl crying was enough for Hamas to call off the, although weak, truce. What the f*** were you trying to hit on a beach for christ's sake? A bunch of "eye for eye" mentality there. that's a huge problem. if hamas kills israelis, the israle goes and kills palestinians, and back and forth. you almost want to laugh at how irrational human behavior could be. but the laughter is just there to hide the anger--it's far from being real laughter.
Puddle
Banned
Theo...change your avatar...although he's a huge ass, it's still barbaric to parade around someone's dead body, which you, in a way, are doing (the World Wide Web version). did images of US dead bodies being paraded in Iraq in celebration disturb you? then realize your avatar is esentially the same thing. It's barbaric...essentially you share some of the same impulses as the al-zarqawi's of the world. Now grow up and change your avatar.
Suzanne
New Member
I know what I think, even if nobody asked me.
Funny how a day later that they had to explain why a man who was bombed by surgical airstrike had a fairly pristine face to show on television.
Oh, he wasn't quite dead yet! He survived! He was getting better! He wanted to get up off his stretcher, but he miraculously passed away shortly after the Iraqi police showed up.
Ok, so i'm not exactly suggesting conspiracy theories because maybe it's possible that you can die from wounds related to a explosives and not have any burns or shrapnel in your face, but I wonder why:
1. It took months for them to plan this out.
2. Why they are broadcasting the face of the hero who ratted him out
3. Why they didn't just send a sniper in and take care of him as they seemed to miss with the tons of explosive they dropped on him while everyone else pretty much bit the dust on impact.
Seriously. I don't think that the person on the inside who "ratted him out" actually exists. Why would you do that to that person by broadcasting his photo on TV? Don't you want the continued services of your mole? Even if you don't, you've basically put a death sentence on his head because there are now a bunch of pissed-off ex-cronies who would like a shot at him.
Think of it like the equivalent of broadcasting the photo of a CIA undercover agent who brought down a terrorist ring. You just wouldn't do that because you're risking compromising the entire operation. But what they needed was a public relations story that shows that one of their own realized "hey, this is WRONG! I must stop this madman!", or maybe they needed to cover for the real mole, so, that's why i think that back at Camp Quaeda, they're most likely scratching their heads and saying "who's this guy?"
Funny how a day later that they had to explain why a man who was bombed by surgical airstrike had a fairly pristine face to show on television.
Oh, he wasn't quite dead yet! He survived! He was getting better! He wanted to get up off his stretcher, but he miraculously passed away shortly after the Iraqi police showed up.
Ok, so i'm not exactly suggesting conspiracy theories because maybe it's possible that you can die from wounds related to a explosives and not have any burns or shrapnel in your face, but I wonder why:
1. It took months for them to plan this out.
2. Why they are broadcasting the face of the hero who ratted him out
3. Why they didn't just send a sniper in and take care of him as they seemed to miss with the tons of explosive they dropped on him while everyone else pretty much bit the dust on impact.
Seriously. I don't think that the person on the inside who "ratted him out" actually exists. Why would you do that to that person by broadcasting his photo on TV? Don't you want the continued services of your mole? Even if you don't, you've basically put a death sentence on his head because there are now a bunch of pissed-off ex-cronies who would like a shot at him.
Think of it like the equivalent of broadcasting the photo of a CIA undercover agent who brought down a terrorist ring. You just wouldn't do that because you're risking compromising the entire operation. But what they needed was a public relations story that shows that one of their own realized "hey, this is WRONG! I must stop this madman!", or maybe they needed to cover for the real mole, so, that's why i think that back at Camp Quaeda, they're most likely scratching their heads and saying "who's this guy?"
Tex
Racer X
I cannot speak for Morrissey, but anything that will help to ebb the tide of violence in Iraq is good. Zarqawi was responsible for alot of death and pain and would have inflicted much more, had he not been taken out.
Hopefully stability will come sooner than later, the good people there have been through enough.
Hopefully stability will come sooner than later, the good people there have been through enough.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Suzanne said:
Be happy they pulled the trigger at all. I guess Bush was waiting for God to tell him what to do. Maybe God was on vacation?
Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq
By Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent
NBC News
With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.
And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Similar threads
- Anonymous
- Off-topic archive (read-only)
