Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[*Robert* 2]

Sheesh VJ!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i fail to see a difference

Yup that's about the size of it.

[almaty 19]

i fail to see a difference

Yup that's about the size of it.

hmmmm....there is always a new young gunslinger trying to take on the master of debate...

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

i fail to see a difference

Yup that's about the size of it.

hmmmm....there is always a new young gunslinger trying to take on the master of debate...

all i've seen the so called "master" do is wiggle more than a worm on a hook. i've yet to see any outrage on his part about american soldiers killed in iraq. all he talks about is how wrong america is, the victims of any act of violence that is not american, and so on. as i've said before, if america disturbs him so much, why does he stay here? why not go back to ireland, which is obviously such a better place with a far better government?

and what do you define as "young"

Edited June 10, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i've yet to see any outrage on his part about american soldiers killed in iraq. all he talks about is how wrong america is, the victims of any act of violence that is not american, and so on. as i've said before, if america disturbs him so much, why does he stay here? why not go back to ireland, which is obviously such a better place with a far better government?

What exactly do you want me to say? That terrorists are desperate men driven to commit desperate and heinous acts by fundamentalist religious and political ideologies. That indiscriminate murder is horrendous? No ###### Sherlock! But I forgot - I'm talking to the sadist pro-torture guy

In any case why should I leave? I'm expressing much the same opinions that are shared by a number of Americans - I'm not sure why as an immigrant you consider those views so much more offensive because they come from someone who was not born here.

Curiously... seeing how you know so much about me, how is it you figure I came from Ireland? Some selective reading perhaps? Suggest you look again.

[slim 1,533]

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.

How can you indescriminately detonate a bomb when you have an intended target?

(Do you descriminate by weighing if the collateral damage is going to be too great? Or, do you descriminate based on how high of a priority your target is, thus minimizing the importance of collateral damage?....... What if your descrimination differs from mine?)

Man, I wish I would've been on here a few hours ago. I missed all the fun!!!

For the record:

I don't condone the actions of anyone on either side of violent incidents. I don't hate the USA. I'm not apologizing for killing Al-Zarqawi. I do believe in minimizing collateral damage, but I also believe there is an acceptable level based on the objectives. And that's where the problems start for most people.

What is the acceptable level?

If you don't have an F-16 with two laser-guided bombs on it, you might be able to reconfigure an old 155mm artillery shell to blow up when you call it on your cell phone. (If you have any minutes left.) So, you do what you can. If your objective is to terminate one individual, those two laser-guided bombs will do the trick. So will the 155 shell. Explosions cause big bangs and kill a lot of people, so most bombers will try to minimize the exposure of non-targeted individuals.

That's why the US dropped the bombs while Al-Zarqawi was in a remote safehouse. Only 6 individuals were killed. That is acceptable collateral damage to take out the "most wanted terrorist" in the country. Hats off to the military, that was an excellent operation. They terminated the targeted individual(s) and limited civilian casualties. To do that, they employed a vast network of personnel, all the way from the guys who build the bombs and aircraft back in the USA, to the guys watching the "spiritual leader" and tracking his movements to pin-point the best time to bomb Al-Zarqawi. Then there was a pilot, some ground crew for the aircraft, all the generals and CIA guys involved in making the decision to "green-light" the airstrike, etc., etc., etc. Which, by the way... all of these guys needed communications equipment (Like the kind Nick Berg installed and serviced.) to coordinate their efforts.

Without a network and resources such as this, a precision strike on a remote location (and a lone individual) is nearly impossible. That's why terrorist strikes often have higher collateral damage.

The reasons behind minimizing collateral damage are obvious. Taking human life unnecessarily is just not right. The reasons behind deliberately increasing collateral damage can be several. More bodies = more media coverage. More bodies = more grief, more pain, more emotion. More bodies, media coverage, grief, pain, emotion = attention to your cause. More attention to your cause starts to make that large network your enemy has a little less powerful becuase people can start to see the correlation between your actions and your intentions, and when death and destruction are all around them.... they transition from pointing the fingers at WHO did it, and start asking WHY it is being done. And when enough people start asking why things are being done, and questioning why they're being done that way.... things start to change.

All of you out there who say "killing Al-Zarqawi is great. That helps make up for the deaths of our 2,000+ service members" aren't asking why those 2,000+ service members died, you're only pointing the finger at who did it. Not why that person did it, not why it happend, but only that he is responsible. Did you ever wonder why he did it?

Fishdude hit the nail on the head. Terrorism isn't stopped by killing the terrorist leaders, it's stopped by resolving the issues that caused the terrorism in the first place. He correctly brought Ireland into this thread about Al-Zarqawi's death. (This is for charlesandnessa.) Ireland is an excellent example of how to defeat terrorism. Iraq is not!

The bottom line is bombing the bombers will not stop terrorism. (Just ask Israel... or Palestine.) It will further exacerbate the situation by increasing tensions and hatred through death and destruction. What will stop terrorism is defeating the underlying causes.

Why the US isn't interested in doing that is beyond me. We were quick to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the tyrannical grip of Sadaam Hussein, (or so they said on Fox News... since no one watches CNN anymore) but we weren't so quick to "liberate" anyone in Africa or Asia, or even South America for that matter. And that's the part that really gets me. When I think about that, it's what makes me rant and rave about the actions of the government. (And make other VJers assume I hate my country.) Not the fact that I agree or disagree with what we're doing, but the hypocrisy with which we choose to be descriminatory on which actions to take.

"It's OK for us to kill them.... but they aren't allowed to kill us back."

[yabasta 0]

What is patriotism though? Following and supporting all actions of your government? That sound rather stupid. Being a good person and showing the world how friendly people from *insert country* can be? If you are proud to be American should you not be ashamed of the actions of the state? I think America gets so much criticism because it is currently seen ont he surface at least to be leadign the way in world destruction. As for America and American government being the same that is just dumb. For one thing the American government is voted for in elections that do not offer much choice. Many people don`t vote and many can`t vote, some of those through no fault of their own. Then you have the fact that people don`t actually vote on whether to go to war or whether to drop this or that bomb.

I would also point out that i do not condone either Zarqawi`s actions anymore than i condone those of Rumsfield`s actions. I do however believe in a fair trial, If such a thing is possible anymore. I also think the idea that anybody nearby is guilty simply because they had to know. What #######. Didn`t somebody say a child was killed? Are we really that hateful? It is the total bullshit of the whole thing. We have WMD which we shall use on you because we believe that you have WMD too. ###### up.

Anybody in the thinking world should laugh at the idea of USA bringing Democracy to anywhere. haha. classic.

p.s. Clinton and Bush sr are best mates and Kerry and Bush junior are in Skull and Bones together. The left and right is a total illusion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

How can you indescriminately detonate a bomb when you have an intended target?

(Do you descriminate by weighing if the collateral damage is going to be too great? Or, do you descriminate based on how high of a priority your target is, thus minimizing the importance of collateral damage?....... What if your descrimination differs from mine?)

Man, I wish I would've been on here a few hours ago. I missed all the fun!!!

For the record:

I don't condone the actions of anyone on either side of violent incidents. I don't hate the USA. I'm not apologizing for killing Al-Zarqawi. I do believe in minimizing collateral damage, but I also believe there is an acceptable level based on the objectives. And that's where the problems start for most people.

What is the acceptable level?

If you don't have an F-16 with two laser-guided bombs on it, you might be able to reconfigure an old 155mm artillery shell to blow up when you call it on your cell phone. (If you have any minutes left.) So, you do what you can. If your objective is to terminate one individual, those two laser-guided bombs will do the trick. So will the 155 shell. Explosions cause big bangs and kill a lot of people, so most bombers will try to minimize the exposure of non-targeted individuals.

That's why the US dropped the bombs while Al-Zarqawi was in a remote safehouse. Only 6 individuals were killed. That is acceptable collateral damage to take out the "most wanted terrorist" in the country. Hats off to the military, that was an excellent operation. They terminated the targeted individual(s) and limited civilian casualties. To do that, they employed a vast network of personnel, all the way from the guys who build the bombs and aircraft back in the USA, to the guys watching the "spiritual leader" and tracking his movements to pin-point the best time to bomb Al-Zarqawi. Then there was a pilot, some ground crew for the aircraft, all the generals and CIA guys involved in making the decision to "green-light" the airstrike, etc., etc., etc. Which, by the way... all of these guys needed communications equipment (Like the kind Nick Berg installed and serviced.) to coordinate their efforts.

Without a network and resources such as this, a precision strike on a remote location (and a lone individual) is nearly impossible. That's why terrorist strikes often have higher collateral damage.

The reasons behind minimizing collateral damage are obvious. Taking human life unnecessarily is just not right. The reasons behind deliberately increasing collateral damage can be several. More bodies = more media coverage. More bodies = more grief, more pain, more emotion. More bodies, media coverage, grief, pain, emotion = attention to your cause. More attention to your cause starts to make that large network your enemy has a little less powerful becuase people can start to see the correlation between your actions and your intentions, and when death and destruction are all around them.... they transition from pointing the fingers at WHO did it, and start asking WHY it is being done. And when enough people start asking why things are being done, and questioning why they're being done that way.... things start to change.

All of you out there who say "killing Al-Zarqawi is great. That helps make up for the deaths of our 2,000+ service members" aren't asking why those 2,000+ service members died, you're only pointing the finger at who did it. Not why that person did it, not why it happend, but only that he is responsible. Did you ever wonder why he did it?

Fishdude hit the nail on the head. Terrorism isn't stopped by killing the terrorist leaders, it's stopped by resolving the issues that caused the terrorism in the first place. He correctly brought Ireland into this thread about Al-Zarqawi's death. (This is for charlesandnessa.) Ireland is an excellent example of how to defeat terrorism. Iraq is not!

The bottom line is bombing the bombers will not stop terrorism. (Just ask Israel... or Palestine.) It will further exacerbate the situation by increasing tensions and hatred through death and destruction. What will stop terrorism is defeating the underlying causes.

Why the US isn't interested in doing that is beyond me. We were quick to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the tyrannical grip of Sadaam Hussein, (or so they said on Fox News... since no one watches CNN anymore) but we weren't so quick to "liberate" anyone in Africa or Asia, or even South America for that matter. And that's the part that really gets me. When I think about that, it's what makes me rant and rave about the actions of the government. (And make other VJers assume I hate my country.) Not the fact that I agree or disagree with what we're doing, but the hypocrisy with which we choose to be descriminatory on which actions to take.

"It's OK for us to kill them.... but they aren't allowed to kill us back."

Excellent post!

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

What exactly do you want me to say? That terrorists are desperate men driven to commit desperate and heinous acts by fundamentalist religious and political ideologies. That indiscriminate murder is horrendous?

- that might be a good start. but you're too busy apologizing for anything the usa does.

No ###### Sherlock! But I forgot - I'm talking to the sadist pro-torture guy

- and i'm talking to the bleeding heart liberal that takes every opportunity to slam the usa while living in a fantasy world.

In any case why should I leave? I'm expressing much the same opinions that are shared by a number of Americans - I'm not sure why as an immigrant you consider those views so much more offensive because they come from someone who was not born here.

- don't try to lump me in with yourself by labeling me as an immigrant.

Curiously... seeing how you know so much about me, how is it you figure I came from Ireland? Some selective reading perhaps? Suggest you look again.

- perhaps from your continual rants about ireland?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is the acceptable level?

That's the right question.

Ireland is an excellent example of how to defeat terrorism. Iraq is not!

My other question is why is it acceptable to conduct this sort of operation in the 3rd world but not in say developed countries which have similar problems with terrorism. Is it because the people who live in the 3rd world are seen as more expendable, that their lives have less value?

Ireland (and Britain) had a huge problem with terrorism over 30 years that killed more people than died in 9/11. Why is it noone ever thought to use the British military to assassinate terrorist suspects over there with precision airstrikes, for example? Why is it that Spain doesn't bomb the Basque country?

Perhaps because to engage in something like that on your home soil would not only be political suicide but it would be a source of national outrage, and would invariably cause a whole slew of court cases. People who live in a dustbowl, with no money and no access to the legal system have less of a voice perhaps....

In part I think there is a degree of 'soft' racism at work.

- that might be a good start. but you're too busy apologizing for anything the usa does.

Well my friend - I don't owe you anything. So with respect... ** you

- and i'm talking to the bleeding heart liberal that takes every opportunity to slam the usa while living in a fantasy world.

Oh really. Better add that to my new signature then - Seriously man - would it be so hard for you to debate the issue rather than attack me? What point exactly are you trying to make? You don't like me? Clearly...

Edited June 10, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

Well my friend - I don't owe you anything. So with respect... ** you

-ditto, without the respect. have a nice day

Oh really. Better add that to my new signature then - Seriously man - would it be so hard for you to debate the issue rather than attack me? What point exactly are you trying to make? You don't like me? Clearly...

-i dislike it when anyone is busy slamming the usa, which you have turned into a profession. when is the last time you posted anything positive about the usa?

Edited June 10, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

-i dislike it when anyone is busy slamming the usa, which you have turned into a profession. when is the last time you posted anything positive about the usa?

Yeah but you seem to think that criticising the government (which I wasn't actually doing here - you brought it up) is unpatriotic.

As I said, I disagree with them over the decision to go to war, their management of it and their handling of certain domestic issues. You seem to think that makes me want to take a piss on the statue of liberty or something.

I'm making my position very clear here - if you don't believe me fine. By all means continue to attack me - though quite what you are trying to achieve is beyond me.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

-i dislike it when anyone is busy slamming the usa, which you have turned into a profession. when is the last time you posted anything positive about the usa?

Yeah but you seem to think that criticising the government (which I wasn't actually doing here - you brought it up) is unpatriotic.

As I said, I disagree with them over the decision to go to war, their management of it and their handling of certain domestic issues. You seem to think that makes me want to take a piss on the statue of liberty or something.

I'm making my position very clear here - if you don't believe me fine. By all means continue to attack me - though quite what you are trying to achieve is beyond me.

yes, you do criticise the us government. every opportunity you get. the apologies will continue, i'm sure.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes, you do criticise the us government. every opportunity you get. the apologies will continue, i'm sure.

What's your point? The government isn't representative of everyone living here.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

yes, you do criticise the us government. every opportunity you get. the apologies will continue, i'm sure.

What's your point? The government isn't representative of everyone living here.

another brilliant dole que gem from the master.

no, it's just representative of the majority!