Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess I understand what you are saying though-- that while Zarqawi is an invader and a necassary evil that has to be taken out, it does not justify killing the civilians of the nation we are supposed to be protecting from him. I would see what you are saying if I believed that anyone killed in the blast that killed him actually opposed him, although in the long run I have to say I think it was a necassary shot.

Now we're getting closer. I have not much of a problem with this particular strike. It's the dozens of others that were supposedly targeting the bad guys and killed civilians attending a wedding or somesuch instead. The general approach and the point often made by the Bushies that it's better to fight them over there than here (which is really saying to have their civilians - that had nothing to do with any of this until we changed that by illegally invading their country - be the collateral damage) is what fuels the "enemy's" fire and ensures their continued recruiting sucesses. It's just plain stupid and short-sighted strategery...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In fact that's somewhat ironic seeing as it was our 'liberation invasion' that opened the floodgates to these people in the first place.

Its easy to buy into high-sounding rhetoric, but I have to wonder what this war is really all about. Fighting terrorism? Based on current performance we seem to be taking it with us.

[ual777 0]

Anyone who says "you cannot compare what happened in World War I and World War II to what is happening today" is dead wrong. (And, after living in Korea for two years, I know all about what the Japanese did during the occupation.)

More Iraqis have been killed by insurgents than by Americans? (Source please!) And, why is there an insurgency? I don't recall an insurgency under Sadaam. There was, but it was immediately crushed and stability restored again. The more actions that the insurgency takes, the more people that are killed, the more death and destruction witnessed by average Iraqis, the more the animosity towards the US and coalition presence. People are going to hate the insurgency, but over time, they're going to hate the occupying forces even more. (If we can't compare WWI and WWII, we can definitely compare Vietnam, right?)

During World Wars I and II, there were huge military units fighting other huge military units and ulitmately countries fighting against countries. Well armed, well trained, well organized military units. A real war like the one you saw in History class back in 7th grade. In Vietnam, that happened too, but there was a whole new element involved. The guerrilla warfare element... the insurgency. (Insurgency is not a new concept in the US.... think back to 1776. Washington and 'nem started us off by being "insurgents" right here in the good ol' US of A. Don't you guys think they should've had 500 lb bombs dropped on their homes too?)

In all of these wars, the government had to convince the people that losing Americans in the fight was worthwhile. In Iraq, they're starting to falter. The reasons given for the invasion and subsequent occupation have been getting harder and harder for most Americans to believe and agree with now. For the die-hard supporters (or sheep, as I like to call them) the reasoning is that the "dirty terrorists all need to die" and whatever action necessary to make that happen is acceptable. What the sheep fail to realize is that when you label a group of people as "dirty terrorists" and start to confuse the good people with the bad, and start saying that "people around the terrorists should've known better" and things of that nature, the people who are not "dirty terrorists" start to realize that even though they aren't "dirty terrorists" they're going to be labeled as such and the big picture doesn't matter so much, because after all, they're just "dirty terrorists."

Or, they're just sneaky Japanese. Or they're just Jerrys. The mindset is the same. They aren't worth as much as an American.

Why not?

All of us on here have foreigners as relatives or potential relatives. How some folks can continue to regard Muslims as less important because they're "allied with the dirty terrorists" is shocking to me. But, that's the American way I guess. As long as it's popular to put people down (and kill them) based on what they look like or where they're from, we'll continue to do it. I just hope these folks remember that if we're going to do it to someone else.... chances are they're going to do it back. How can we be mad at that, after all, it's the American way!

Lets discuss this for a minute.

I will start with your comments about Saddam. The reason there was no insurgency under Saddam was because whoever opposed him was torture and or killed sometimes along with family members, or the family members would be billed for the bullet used to execute the "insurgent".

If you think that Saddam was nice to his people you are sorely mistaken. This is the same man who gassed his own people.

Secondly, in WW2 there WAS a very large insurgency on the eastern front in the battle between the Russians and Germans.

Thirdly there is NO comparison to the revolution of 1776 and the terrorists in Iraq. I do not recall George Washington cutting off General Cornwalis' head after the battle of Yorktown. Furthermore, the overall situation is different because the terrorists are fighting over RELIGION. It is 'great satan' this and 'infidels' that...so saying that Zarqawi is along the same lines as G.Washington or P.Revere is ludacris.

Thirdly, call me a 'sheep' if you like, but terrorists DO need to die.

I will list just a few terror attacks from 2001 to 2003 to give you an idea.

9/11/01 - 19 men hijack 4 aircraft and killed over 1,000 Americans.

9/11/01 - 2 Palestinian gunmen kill 2 policemen at a checkpoint in Israel.

9/21/01 - 29 people are killed and 2000 are wounded in France when an radical islamist blows up a fertilizer plant.

9/23/01 - A 17 year old is beaten with a hammer and stabbed to death by and islamic gang in London.

10/21/01- Seven civilians have their throats slit by islamic radicals in Algeria.

10/21/01 - Hamas car bombers kill 16 people on a bus in Tel Aviv.

10/24/02 - 40 Christians are killed by a mob of muslims in Nigeria

10/26/02 - 129 people are killed in a rescue attempt in Moscow after 800 are taken hostage by Chechnyan muslim radicals.

10/28/02 - American diplomat is killed by 2 al-Qaeda terrorists in Jordan.

10/30/02 - Terrorists murder 8 in Algeria including 4 children.

10/31/02- Islamic radicals murder 20 Christain students at a college in Nigeria.

12/6/02- 4 bombs detonate in 4 different movie theaters in Bangladesh killing 27

12/27/02- Palestinian gunman breaks into a Jewish seminary in Israel killing 4 students who were sitting down to Sabbath dinner.

12/30/02 - Islamic radical kills three American humanitarian workers in Yemen.

1/5/03- 23 people are killed by suicide bombers in Tel Aviv.

1/31/03 - Al-Qaeda landmine blows up a bus killing 18 people in Afghanistan.

4/4/03 - 2 FEMALE car bombers drive up to a U.S. checkpoint in Iraq, scream for help, then kill 3 soldiers rushing to their assitance.

I picked out about 5% of the total list of attacks by islamic radicals. They deliberatly target civilians which the U.S. does not do.

Kill them all I say (the radicals that is). In my mind, the war on terror is one worth fighting. Think before saying something so offensive as George Washington = Zarqawi.

Oh, and BTW, islamic terrorists have carried out more than 5,122 terror attacks around the world since 9/11/2001.

Edited June 11, 2006 by ual777

[dalegg 143]

The general approach and the point often made by the Bushies that it's better to fight them over there than here (which is really saying to have their civilians - that had nothing to do with any of this until we changed that by illegally invading their country - be the collateral damage) is what fuels the "enemy's" fire and ensures their continued recruiting sucesses. It's just plain stupid and short-sighted strategery...

With regards to thinking of humans as collatoral damage in doing battle, I think there are times when you have to do just that unfortunately.- when it means that in the long run less people will die. When you think of humans as collatoral damage in planning a war though, I think your standards have to be extremely high. Before you accept that innocent people are going to die as a result of your actions, you had better be 100% sure that unless you take steps that are going to kill other innocent people, your own citizens will be in danger, there is no way to avoid it, and you have absolute undeniable rock solid proof. I think when you are talking about human lives there is no other standard.

[ual777 0]

Furthermore, just in the month of May, 2006, 229 Jihad attacks have been carried out around the world, killing 1,143 people and critically injuring 1,512.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In my mind, the war on terror is one worth fighting.

But what is it? What does it actually mean? Seriously, I think that's worth thinking about. Are the 'high sounding' ideals matched by subsequent action?

As I said before, why was Iraq chosen for this? There are many ######-holes the world over - Sudan and Somalia for instance, which are undergoing massive humanitarian crises? If that weren't enough the same influences that were running the show in Afghanistan for instance, are in display there.

I just find it hard to understand the need to create more suffering and political instability in the world when there is more than enough to go around.

It just confirms for me that the war on terror is not about relieving humanitarian suffering, it's easier to swallow by wrapping it up in noble idealism, but the reality is that it is more self-serving.

With regards to thinking of humans as collatoral damage in doing battle, I think there are times when you have to do just that unfortunately.- when it means that in the long run less people will die. When you think of humans as collatoral damage in planning a war though, I think your standards have to be extremely high. Before you accept that innocent people are going to die as a result of your actions, you had better be 100% sure that unless you take steps that are going to kill other innocent people, your own citizens will be in danger, there is no way to avoid it, and you have absolute undeniable rock solid proof. I think when you are talking about human lives there is no other standard.

Sure, but it seems clear to me that the lives of certain people are bought much more cheaply than others - noone really cares about a the deaths of a few people living in mud huts in an unmapped village that noone's ever heard of, and crucially where there are no TV cameras.

[ual777 0]

Oh, and as for a source Slim....

As of March 19, 2005...

9,270 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of American led combat operations. Only 2,388 of these occured after victory was declared.

Insurgents and extremists have killed 14,337 civilians of which 14,141 came after the defeat of Saddam.

Spikes in U.S. caused deaths were 6,616 civilians killed in the initial invasion.

632 killed in April 2004 (Fallujah)

775 killed in Nov. 2004 (Fallujah pt. 2).

TOTAL civilian deaths were at appx. 23,000 in March 2005.

The insurgency/islamic radicals are currently killing civilians as opposed to U.S. caused civilian deaths at a rate of 50:1 to 90:1 depending on the month.

www.logictimes.com/civilian.

[slim 1,533]

I'm doing the math here.... and all of those terror attacks still don't add up to the civilian deaths as a result of American combat actions.

...... and just what is a "jihad attack?"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The general approach and the point often made by the Bushies that it's better to fight them over there than here (which is really saying to have their civilians - that had nothing to do with any of this until we changed that by illegally invading their country - be the collateral damage) is what fuels the "enemy's" fire and ensures their continued recruiting sucesses. It's just plain stupid and short-sighted strategery...

With regards to thinking of humans as collatoral damage in doing battle, I think there are times when you have to do just that unfortunately.- when it means that in the long run less people will die. When you think of humans as collatoral damage in planning a war though, I think your standards have to be extremely high. Before you accept that innocent people are going to die as a result of your actions, you had better be 100% sure that unless you take steps that are going to kill other innocent people, your own citizens will be in danger, there is no way to avoid it, and you have absolute undeniable rock solid proof. I think when you are talking about human lives there is no other standard.

Yes. But you are missing the central point: The US willy-nilly went to Iraq to fight an enemy that Iraq had nothing to do with. This was done under the headline: We better fight them [the terrorists] over there than here at home. The question is, why is that better? It is obviously better (for the US) because that way, the unavoidable human collateral damage will be Iraqi civilians rather than American civilians. Now, that may get you elected here in the US but if I was an Iraqi, I'd be extremely pissed at such a display of arrogance where the government of nation that illegally agresses against and invades my country publicly states that the lives of it's civilians is worth more than mine and that it will fight it's enemy [which is supposedly not me and my people] in my back yard whether I like it or not.

That's like me breaking into your home to take care of some messy business simply because I feel it is better to mess up your house than mine. Whether you agree with it or whether I have any right to do so doesn't matter. I am bigger and stronger than you and, thus, I am going to ** up your place to keep mine neat and clean. I'm sure you'd consider me your best friend going forward...

Edited June 11, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iraq body Count puts the total death toll somewher between 38355 and 42747.

Most people in the US know of at least one person who knows someone who died or was caught up in 9/11 - can you imagine what its like here with a death toll at least 10 times 9/11.

I don't think it makes much of a difference who is doing the killing - the end result is the same. Up to 50,000 people would still be alive if we hadn't have gone to war.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[ual777 0]

I'm doing the math here.... and all of those terror attacks still don't add up to the civilian deaths as a result of American combat actions.

...... and just what is a "jihad attack?"

And you call other people sheep! I just gave you RELIABLE numbers with current trends! Open your eyes man! The terrorists are killing more civilians over there than the U.S.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

Balanced!? Yeah fcukin right...

Arrogance on display there is breath-taking.

Shaky mathematics justifies questionable policies.... Right.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[ual777 0]

Ok and here is another statistic....

During Saddam's rule he killed between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis and was responsible for the deaths of over 700,000 Iranians and Kuwaitis.

Using the statistical trends prevailent, if Saddam was still in power he would have killed appx. 125,000 people in the same 38 month period of the American occupation.

Ill use the high estimates for the math.

125,000 NUMBER of civilians that would have been killed by Saddam in the period.

- 42,000 TOTAL Civilians killed in Iraq (not just by the U.S.)

----------------

83,000 people saved from Saddam.

You can make all the U.S. babykilling statements you want, but they just arent true.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Interesting justification. i read that on the site too, along with this.

Today, as many as ninety-two thousand Iraqis are alive (and free and voting) because of American policy. I guess that does not interest the anti-war crowd.

Cause that's what the whole argument is about isn't it? - so righteous armchair generals who before 9/11 didn't give a ** about anything and anywhere except the price of gas and their own back yard, can feel good about themselves as they watch the game in their lazy-boy eating cheesy-poofs.

You can justify it any way you like - but the fact is this war was never about relieving humanitarian suffering - if that were the case we'd be all over places like the Sudan stopping the genocide. Would we not?

* Logic Times is a conservative web site. Yes, this site references other conservative columnists and sites. This does not invalidate the analysis expressed in the Rational Thought 101 essay. Information is conveyed by people, and people have worldviews that shape that information. You should be wary of bias always, but be alert for things called FACTS, which travel along with the natural bias and stand on their own two feet.

* Death in war is not good. Rational Thought 101 makes observations about the relative number of people that have died because of action in Iraq. This does not mean that death is good. This does not mean that there is a numeric threshold below which we can comfortably ignore the tragic consequences of war. The discussion related to casualties is about perspective and the responsible use of language, not about the indefensible idea that civilian or military deaths can be disregarded.

* Americans historically have not been concerned when Iraqi civilians die. You may be the exception, but it is unlikely. Between 700,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians died between 1979 and 2003 and, if you are a typical American, you were unaware of this or lightly concerned. Keep this reality in mind when reading.

Wrong on Iraq? Not Everyone - Four in the mainstream media who got it right

What was it about again?

Edited June 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[yabasta 0]

Is it a competition to see who kills the least but manages to still reduce the earth population and leave the survivors bitter, poor and angry?

It is funny to read "only 2388" deaths were after "victory" was declared.

Also how do you know who killed who. Do you not recall the SAS men who were found dressed a insurgents with bomb equipment? Black ops they call it. War is not a game with a referee. It is no hold`s barred.

All bombing is terrorism.

Terrorism is a method of war for those without the resources to fight on a level battlefield and covert ops is a method of war undertaken by those with an abundance of resources. None of it is at all pleasant. To say the invasion of Iraq was wrong is not to say that Saddam was "good". Saddam after all was one of the American governments boys.

You should question yourself as much as you question others and you certainly shouldn`t get caught up in sides. Saddam and Osama and Bush and Blair are all the same. They are all funded by the same fear and the same banks. People will justify these deaths so easily and then wonder how some people will do that with the WTC.

Whether you buy the official story of 9/11 or not the fact is that the losers were those civillian deaths in New york and those in Iraq and Afghanistan and all those in the next countries to be invaded. The citizens who have less liberty now in AMerica and U.K. etc etc.

The war is against the masses by the few.