Zarqawi killed in air raid

[Barking_Mad]

Im not going to shed any tears for a mass murder, just as Id shed no tears for Mrs Bush & Blair. However if you believe in justice and the rule of law rather than the 'rule of the jungle' then it would have been far better if he had been caught and held to trial, even with everything that comes with the media and political circus of putting these people in the dock.

If 'we' claim to be morally superior we have to abide by these morals, unfortunately all that's gone in Iraq shows a complete disregard for the rule of law, except as Bush and Blair define it. Sadly too many people on here and in the public in general get sucked into the media and political spin machine and are prepared to accept the double standards with little critical thought.

Bollocks to the lot of them.

 

[david dissadent]

Does this thread really need this personal bickering?


As for the beheader Zarqawi, if the USofA knew he was there, why didn't they send in their speciel forces to arrest or even single out him for a bullet, and thus avoid the child dieing?

Mogadishu 1993 put paid to the illusion that a strike by special forces can be a neat clean kidnapping.

The United States is not omnipitant and is bound by one set of laws no one can escape, the laws of physics. From a very high altitude, (circa 10km) a fighter could drop a munition several miles from the target and turn away perhaps totaly unheard by the occupants and there look outs. The bomb would fall for several minutes and hit with almost 0 warning catching all unaware.

A helicopter raid would be seen by outlying gaurds many minutes before approaching, even just a man on the roof could give the occupants several minutes to mount an escape and counter attack. When the helicopters take up positions to drop the troops theyd be sitting ducks for RPGs while Zarqawi and his lieutenants would be dispersing to safe houses and other exit routes, they've done it before.

A ground based assualt would be even longer in the warning and probibly bloodier in conclusion for far far less likely snatch possibility.

It is not a morally right descion to bomb a house holding a mass murderer with innocents, but IMHO and only in my opinion it was the least moraly wrong choice within the context. (cue they should never be there blah blah blah, that is a different argument.) Others are free to disagree with me, I do not believe the situation has a definitve moral answer.

 

[david dissadent]

Remeber the fellow was openly inciting a genocidal civil war.

 

[admirablenelson]

Actually, it's good news.

No, it isn't. USA/Uk invaded Iraq to restore democracy and the rule of law to a country where a tyrant represented a threat to the region (supposedly).

Ok, democracy is getting there, but the rule of law is off the scale. Saddam went round killing anyone who got in his way and USA/UK are doing exactly the same. This is not a war. The troops are there to support the fledgling Iraqi state. It is a policing operation. Zarqawi's house was under surveillance for 6 weeks. Surely the world's best trained forces were up to a snatch? But no, the place was bombed, Zarqawi is a martyr and the fuel is poured on the fire of the insurgency.

These actions were stupid, wrong and dangerous. Zarqawi in jail and tried for his actions would be good news. Zarqawi martyred and the values necessary to build a decent society ignored, bad news.

Zarqawi's killing was an assasination, Saddam must be so proud that his standards are being upheld.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If 'we' claim to be morally superior we have to abide by these morals, unfortunately all that's gone in Iraq shows a complete disregard for the rule of law, except as Bush and Blair define it. .

Who is it we're morally superior to?

Tell us who it is who's morally inferior.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, it isn't. USA/Uk invaded Iraq to restore democracy and the rule of law to a country where a tyrant represented a threat to the region (supposedly).

Ok, democracy is getting there, but the rule of law is off the scale. Saddam went round killing anyone who got in his way and USA/UK are doing exactly the same. This is not a war. The troops are there to support the fledgling Iraqi state. It is a policing operation. Zarqawi's house was under surveillance for 6 weeks. Surely the world's best trained forces were up to a snatch? But no, the place was bombed, Zarqawi is a martyr and the fuel is poured on the fire of the insurgency.

These actions were stupid, wrong and dangerous. Zarqawi in jail and tried for his actions would be good news. Zarqawi martyred and the values necessary to build a decent society ignored, bad news.

Zarqawi's killing was an assasination, Saddam must be so proud that his standards are being upheld.

I disagree. Zarqawi caught would be like Saddam caught: a circus, with his supporters hanging on every word.

Better the bomb through the roof.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Remeber the fellow was openly inciting a genocidal civil war.

What, and you think the invasion of Iraq, purposely or otherwise wasn't inviting that kind of situation?

 

[nino_savatte]

All that aside, it's good that Zarqawi is dead.

But I'll bet (and I'm not a gambling man but I am prepared to place a small wager on this) that you believe this to be some sort of "turning point".

 

[ViolentPanda]

All that aside, it's good that Zarqawi is dead.

What exactly do you base that "analysis" on?

That his death gives the coalition a propaganda "victory" is without doubt, and I'm sure it'll stiffen a few limp dicks, but we won't know what Zarqawi's death has achieved for a while yet.

For all we know this will mean a ratcheting up of operations now that he's gone and his boys don't have to worry about being circumspect in order to keep him hidden.

Will it still be "good" if it causes a rise in deaths?

 

[Kaka Tim]

Isit still outrageous that George Galloway has said that the killing of Tony Blair and/or george bush by Iraqi insurgents would be 'morally justifiable'?

Or is that moral justification just reserved for swarthy foreigners?

Lock and Light - if you can take some time of from your willy waving - do you think this was a justified action?

Zarqawi killing = big time murderous gangsters rub out small time murderous gangster.

 

[cemertyone]

QUOTE]

Grow up for fucks sake you idiot.......

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Anyone know anything about the legality of the killing?

 

[nino_savatte]

I do know this: Zarqawi's execution was carried out in typical over-the-top US military style...chuck loads of bombs at it.

 

[cemertyone]

I do know this: Zarqawi's execution was carried out in typical over-the-top US military style...chuck loads of bombs at it.

No metion of the dead children and other " collateral damage"...but when the killings are done in " OUR NAME" then its not terrorism its freedom....all done from 36,000 feet.......how quaint...

 

[nino_savatte]

No metion of the dead children and other " collateral damage"...but when the killings are done in " OUR NAME" then its not terrorism its freedom....all done from 36,000 feet.......how quaint...

Exactly, they've kept schtum about that.

 

[Lock&Light]

Lock and Light - do you think this was a justified action?

Zarqawi killing = big time murderous gangsters rub out small time murderous gangster.

Of course I think the killing of Zarqawi is justified.

'Small time' murderous gangster, indeed!

 

[kyser_soze]

I see the Americans are publicly displaying pictures of the corpse. They fall further into the slime of primitivism week by week.

They're only falling down a slope that was already well greased by freedom fighters and Al-J broadcasting hostages having their heads cut off...

Wow some people on here really need to invest in a 4x4 to really see who's got the biggest penis!!!

This forum all over innit?

 

[Yossarian]

The Americans started the displaying of mangled corpses as far back as July 2003 when they killed Saddam Hussein's sons.

 

[Lock&Light]

The Americans started the displaying of mangled corpses as far back as July 2003 when they killed Saddam Hussein's sons.

Only pictures of the corpses of those who are feared will remove the fearfulness.

 

[Yossarian]

What is this, the Middle Ages?

 

[Lock&Light]

What is this, the Middle Ages?

There's not a huge difference in fact.

 

[kyser_soze]

What is this, the Middle Ages?

Judging by that show on the PHC (debated on another thread) the Yanks are probably about 25-50 years away from it...

 

[Yossarian]

There's not a huge difference in fact.

Did the Allies feel the need to distribute grisly photographs of executed Nazis after Nuremberg?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

What is this, the Middle Ages?

Looking more and more like it every day…

 

[Spymaster]

Did the Allies feel the need to distribute grisly photographs of executed Nazis after Nuremberg?

No, but the war had been won and nazism defeated.

Had they killed Adolf in '42, I'm pretty sure that if they were able, they'd have published pictures.

 

[kyser_soze]

Did the Allies feel the need to distribute grisly photographs of executed Nazis after Nuremberg?

No, but they'd been distributing fairly grizly pictures from Concentration camps for a few years by that point...

 

[Yossarian]

Yes, but those weren't the corpses of the feared.

 

[Yossarian]

Had they killed Adolf in '42, I'm pretty sure that if they were able, they'd have published pictures.

I reckon they would have had a hard time convincing people it was the real corpse, unless there was a corresponding collapse of Nazi Germany.

It wouldn't surprise me if the average Iraqi in the street is a bit skeptical about this body being the real Zarqawi - there's probably an Iraqi Dr al-Jazzz putting a theory together right now.

 

[Lock&Light]

there's probably an Iraqi Dr al-Jazzz putting a theory together right now.

Our own Jazzz probably thinks that the man in the Iraqi court is a double of Saddam Hussein.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Of course I think the killing of Zarqawi is justified.

'Small time' murderous gangster, indeed!

'small time' in comparision with the big time gangsters with air forces, navys and armoured divisions.

And how is the moral justification of killing Zarqawi any different from Galloways arguments about moral justification of killing Blair (or bush)?

On the other thread you said you dont support anyone being assassinated - but its clear that its not the killing you object to, but who's doing it.