Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[000OOO000 0]

Has anyone entertained the idea that the REAL target was al-Zarqawi's spiritual adviser, Sheik Abdel Rahman?

They have been tracking him for a long time, but you can't come out and say you targeted a spiritual adviser, so you just wait until the two are together, and take them both out.

Two for the price of one sale... I think they should have more of those!

Sure Zarqwi was a wonderful man he wasnt the target innocent ppl were including his spiritual advisor who led him to God and they prayed each day and tried to live a decent life. Yea right. that again is absurd.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Has anyone entertained the idea that the REAL target was al-Zarqawi's spiritual adviser, Sheik Abdel Rahman?

They have been tracking him for a long time, but you can't come out and say you targeted a spiritual adviser, so you just wait until the two are together, and take them both out.

Two for the price of one sale... I think they should have more of those!

Sure Zarqwi was a wonderful man he wasnt the target innocent ppl were including his spiritual advisor who led him to God and they prayed each day and tried to live a decent life. Yea right. that again is absurd.

Who said he was "wonderful" and "decent"? Who said exactly and specifically said it?

Put it this way - hypothetically speaking... would you consider the loss of your family members justifiable fair game if on holiday they get caught up in an airstrike to kill one wanted man?

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

more apologies to come, stay tuned

Apologies for what?

Perhaps you'd care to add something to the discussion other than inane gibber-jabber

the only gibber jabber i see is the continual whining and carrying on by a select few about how bad the usa is. never a good word about anything the usa does from this elite crowd, just a constant drone of complaints. i'm still surprised some of you even live here, given your constant stream of whining about everything the usa does.

[Artegal 1]

"I'm not. Just don't think agree that 'getting your man' is worth the death of bystanders. I'm also talking about the broader picture outside of this one case - where dozens of people have been killed just to ensure the death of one man. Just making the point that killing bystanders is a horrific and unjustifiable ethical choice."

As I dont agree with you those people in the house were innocent they know who he was and knew that at anytime he could be attacked and killed by any means possible. What about the THOUSANDS of ppl Zarqwi killed werent they innocent? This is war and it is what it is. You cant go and jerk the innocent out of the way and say "you stand over here while I shoot off this bomb". It doesnt work that way.

But... I'm not talking just about this one incident. For example:

On July 22, 2002, the Israeli Defense Forces targeted the building in which Shahade was hiding using a 2,205-pound bomb dropped by a F-16 plane that destroyed many houses in a densely populated neighborhood of Gaza City. As a result, 15 people were killed, including Shahade, his wife and 9 children. In addition to the building which was directly targeted, nine other adjacent buildings were completely destroyed and 12 others were severely damaged. 150 people were hospitalized with injuries from the attack.

The dilemma is the same. Someone makes a decision that the lives of a few are inconsequential and can be sacrificed in order to achieve a military objective. Those people do not have a choice in the matter. Clearly. I'm simply saying that the decision itself is ethically unjustifiable.

Inevitably you end up at a point where you ask yourself "how many bystanders is it ok to maim and kill in order to take out one man. 50? 100?

Well considering in this case the "safe" house was in a remote area and the 7 people killed were members of Zarkawi's posse or gang where did any innocent bystanders get in the way?

But in the broader sense, considering that Zarkawi and others indesicriminately detonate roadside and car bombs in whereever and whenever killing not only the intended targets but also countless bystanders, then to prevent further such terrorist bombings--unfortunately it might be necessary to drop a bomb to prevent further bloodshed. Don't forget that bystanders the victims of the Terrorist had no choice in the matter either.

Just last Friday Zarkawi had called for an all out war against Shiites--so yes you want to take the killer out before he can do more murders--and that is what was done in this case--the bomb was dropped at night while Zarkawi was in a remote safe house and probably asleep. They had been watching him for several weeks--and no doubt had other opportunities to drop a bomb on him--but in those circumstances collateral damage was probably a greater risk.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

Well considering in this case the "safe" house was in a remote area and the 7 people killed were members of Zarkawi's posse or gang where did any innocent bystanders get in the way?

But in the broader sense, considering that Zarkawi and others indesicriminately detonate roadside and car bombs in whereever and whenever killing not only the intended targets but also countless bystanders, then to prevent further such terrorist bombings--unfortunately it might be necessary to drop a bomb to prevent further bloodshed. Don't forget that bystanders the victims of the Terrorist had no choice in the matter either.

Just last Friday Zarkawi had called for an all out war against Shiites--so yes you want to take the killer out before he can do more murders--and that is what was done in this case--the bomb was dropped at night while Zarkawi was in a remote safe house and probably asleep. They had been watching him for several weeks--and no doubt had other opportunities to drop a bomb on him--but in those circumstances collateral damage was probably a greater risk.

some here would give zarkawi a medal for killing us soldiers. the bleeding hearts abound it seems.

myself, i won't miss him one bit. only bad thing is he could not have been killed earlier.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

more apologies to come, stay tuned

Apologies for what?

Perhaps you'd care to add something to the discussion other than inane gibber-jabber

the only gibber jabber i see is the continual whining and carrying on by a select few about how bad the usa is. never a good word about anything the usa does from this elite crowd, just a constant drone of complaints. i'm still surprised some of you even live here, given your constant stream of whining about everything the usa does.

Right... actually I didn't say anything about the USA. My point was the ethical dilemma of justifying the killing of civilian bystanders to kill one wanted man. Twist it any way you like - that issue is still there at the center of it.

There are terrorists and criminals in other countries - Northern Ireland for instance, and noone saw fit to drop bombs onto towns in EIRE to knock out members of the IRA when they were killing people in Mainland England. I guess we (the collective We) play by different rules when we are dealing with alleged barbarians in 3rd world countries.

[Princess_Damnit 0]

the only gibber jabber i see is the continual whining and carrying on by a select few about how bad the usa is. never a good word about anything the usa does from this elite crowd, just a constant drone of complaints. i'm still surprised some of you even live here, given your constant stream of whining about everything the usa does.

[Artegal 1]

more apologies to come, stay tuned

Apologies for what?

Perhaps you'd care to add something to the discussion other than inane gibber-jabber

the only gibber jabber i see is the continual whining and carrying on by a select few about how bad the usa is. never a good word about anything the usa does from this elite crowd, just a constant drone of complaints. i'm still surprised some of you even live here, given your constant stream of whining about everything the usa does.

Right... actually I didn't say anything about the USA. My point was the ethical dilemma of justifying the killing of civilian bystanders to kill one wanted man. Twist it any way you like - that issue is still there at the center of it.

There are terrorists and criminals in other countries - Northern Ireland for instance, and noone saw fit to drop bombs onto towns in EIRE to knock out members of the IRA when they were killing people in Mainland England. I guess we (the collective We) play by different rules when we are dealing with alleged barbarians in 3rd world countries.

I would like to see less collateral damage in circumstances where a killer or group of killers must be taken out who are hidden amoung colaborators--or at least those apathetic to the circumstances, but another point that bothers me about such actions as military airstrikes.

Let us now suppose that a strike team of special forces were sent in to take out a target or targets. If the strike team mistakenly shot and killed an innocent bystander--they are investigated and often brought up on charges of murder or homicide. Now then a 500 LBS bomb is dropped and levels a city block and kills the target but also takes out the nursery school of orphans across the street--we accept this loss as collateral damage--and the pilot is escapes scrutny.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

Right... actually I didn't say anything about the USA. My point was the ethical dilemma of justifying the killing of civilian bystanders to kill one wanted man. Twist it any way you like - that issue is still there at the center of it.

There are terrorists and criminals in other countries - Northern Ireland for instance, and noone saw fit to drop bombs onto towns in EIRE to knock out members of the IRA when they were killing people in Mainland England. I guess we (the collective We) play by different rules when we are dealing with alleged barbarians in 3rd world countries.

and you'd complain about that too. the usa is bombing ireland. more civilians killed, ad nauseum. it seems that nothing the usa does pleases you. so why are you still here?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well considering in this case the "safe" house was in a remote area and the 7 people killed were members of Zarkawi's posse or gang where did any innocent bystanders get in the way?

But in the broader sense, considering that Zarkawi and others indesicriminately detonate roadside and car bombs in whereever and whenever killing not only the intended targets but also countless bystanders, then to prevent further such terrorist bombings--unfortunately it might be necessary to drop a bomb to prevent further bloodshed. Don't forget that bystanders the victims of the Terrorist had no choice in the matter either.

Sure but who has the right to make that choice?

If you lived there, would you care about the "greater cause" if your wife/mother/sister/child got caught up in an allied airstrike.

I just think there is (and has been) a whole different code of conduct when dealing with people in 3rd world countries - we consider their lives cheaper and more expendable than ours.

[Princess_Damnit 0]

Perhaps if those people did not act like barbarians and savages we would not be in war.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Princess_Damnit

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

Sure but who has the right to make that choice?

- obviously people better informed than you or i, eh?

If you lived there, would you care about the "greater cause" if your wife/mother/sister/child got caught up in an allied airstrike.

- sounds like a good reason to know thy neighbors............

I just think there is (and has been) a whole different code of conduct when dealing with people in 3rd world countries - we consider their lives cheaper and more expendable than ours.

- as shown by the roadside bombings. yet i've not seen any outrage on your part, just against anything the usa does.

[Artegal 1]

Sure but who has the right to make that choice?

If you lived there, would you care about the "greater cause" if your wife/mother/sister/child got caught up in an allied airstrike.

I just think there is (and has been) a whole different code of conduct when dealing with people in 3rd world countries - we consider their lives cheaper and more expendable than ours.

Fishdude--its not a oneway street. The Terrorist don't consider the Western World in any higher regard--in effect we were and are to their disdain--less than human to be slaughtered in all manners of ways--so while I aggree there is an attitude of disdain for others--this is not something that any society has a monopoly. In all countries there is a love-hate of foreigners. Even within countries this sectarian or racial or ethnic tension exists. We always hate strangers, foreingers, because they are strange and foreign.

[mawilson 2,133]

They also tried to blow up Yasser Arafat in the early 1980's and killed approx 200 people.

There's also these gems to consider:

Salah Mustafa Muhammad Shahade (1953–2002) - leader of the Ezzedeen-al-qassam brigades, the military wing of terrorist Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas.

...

####### happens man, all I'm saying is that -- generally speaking -- they try not to kill civilians,

unlike the terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

A fair response to a rocket fired towards Sderot or Ashkelon would be to randomly fire a rocket

into Gaza City. Do they do that? No.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right... actually I didn't say anything about the USA. My point was the ethical dilemma of justifying the killing of civilian bystanders to kill one wanted man. Twist it any way you like - that issue is still there at the center of it.

There are terrorists and criminals in other countries - Northern Ireland for instance, and noone saw fit to drop bombs onto towns in EIRE to knock out members of the IRA when they were killing people in Mainland England. I guess we (the collective We) play by different rules when we are dealing with alleged barbarians in 3rd world countries.

and you'd complain about that too. the usa is bombing ireland. more civilians killed, ad nauseum. it seems that nothing the usa does pleases you. so why are you still here?

Why I am here is self-evident - for the same fcuking reason you're trying to bring your fiancee into the US. Why are you ignoring the point and projecting your personal dislikes into this issue?

As for Ireland - in 30 years of terrorist actvity in Ireland and Mainland England, we never once resorted to accepting 'collateral' damage in order to assassinate a terrorist suspect. Perhaps because people recognised that the issue was so much deeper than just trying to 'control' the violence - actually dealing with the underlying problems is what has actually cemented the peace.