CNN & FOX-Al-Zarqawi killed

[nightowlky]

Oh look! More ad hominem attacks!


YAY!

 

[dcentity2000]

Whilst I am waaaaaay too religious to condone or celebrate any death, even of my worst enemy, I recognise that the news may act well as a placebo for many people.

There are only two facts:

• Evil man dead
• Militants either don't give a damn or are so angry they're gonna go bomb somebody

Meh.



Rich::

 

[goofy's friends]

Oh look! More ad hominem attacks!


YAY!

No, you just said that there wasn't MUCH wrong with those sources and I was saying that sources are important and need to be considered when deciding if facts given by said sources are true or not. The sources you listed are known liberal sources and therefore, not unbiased in the so-called facts they present.

 

[MagicKingdom05]

I don't care what anyone says, this was a good thing that our military did by taking out Al-Zarqawi and I couldn't be prouder of our men and women fighting for our freedom.

 

[transparant]

I don't care what anyone says, this was a good thing that our military did by taking out Al-Zarqawi and I couldn't be prouder of our men and women fighting for our freedom.

I'm with you. I think the vast majority is with you on this one.

 

[goofy's friends]

I'm with you. I think the vast majority is with you on this one.

Yup!!

 

[nightowlky]

No, you just said that there wasn't MUCH wrong with those sources and I was saying that sources are important and need to be considered when deciding if facts given by said sources are true or not. The sources you listed are known liberal sources and therefore, not unbiased in the so-called facts they present.

WaPo, BBC, and MSNBC are "known liberal sources" ???


Wow.


BTW, want some detailed info on Zarqawi (not his real name, btw)?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/zarqawi/3?ca=9hloQUJamUfhaPsPg+9E5USZvqSqBDKyXpAE9U9Gsng=

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat—take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. Under no circumstances did he want to become involved in the battle between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. He also did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad.

...

One can only imagine how astonished al-Zarqawi must have been when Colin Powell named him as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was not even officially a part of al-Qaeda, and ever since he had left Afghanistan, his links had been not to Iraq but to Iran.

...

“Even then—and even more so now—Zarqawi was not the main force in the insurgency,” the former Jordanian intelligence official, who has studied al-Zarqawi for a decade, told me. “To establish himself, he carried out the Muhammad Hakim operation, and the attack against the UN. Both of them gained a lot of support for him—with the tribes, with Saddam’s army and other remnants of his regime. They made Zarqawi the symbol of the resistance in Iraq, but not the leader. And he never has been.”

He continued, “The Americans have been patently stupid in all of this. They’ve blown Zarqawi so out of proportion that, of course, his prestige has grown. And as a result, sleeper cells from all over Europe are coming to join him now.” He paused for a moment, then said, “Your government is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Western and Israeli diplomats to whom I spoke shared this view—and this past April, The Washington Post reported on Pentagon documents that detailed a U.S. military propaganda campaign to inflate al-Zarqawi’s importance. Then, the following month, the military appeared to attempt to reverse field and portray al-Zarqawi as an incompetent who could not even handle a gun. But by then his image in the Muslim world was set.

​

So, it would appear that another figurehead, not an operational leader, has been taken out. Much like the multitude of "Al Qaeda #2"s.

This reminds me of the capture in Jan. 2005 of Sami Muhammad Ali Said Jaaf, a top mastermind of the car bombings going on in Iraq from 2003 up until his capture. Well, we all see what that did to slow down the attacks and the killings. Not a darn thing.

The only thing that will help to stop the flow of blood is for the US to pull out of Iraq and remove the source of many of the jihadists' anger: the US military presence in the Middle East.

BTW, do you know what 'near-enemy' and 'far-enemy' refer to and which one Zarqawi represented until the US invaded Iraq?

 

[RonnieJo66]

I don't care what anyone says, this was a good thing that our military did by taking out Al-Zarqawi and I couldn't be prouder of our men and women fighting for our freedom.

I'm with ya too! Those men and women deserve our thanks and support.

 

[nightowlky]

I don't care what anyone says, this was a good thing that our military did by taking out Al-Zarqawi and I couldn't be prouder of our men and women fighting for our freedom.

I'm proud of them, too, but there's no US soldier anywhere fighting for our freedom over here. Let's just try and keep that straight.

The US is under no threat from any state right now and hasn't been since the end of the Cold War.

 

[transparant]

I'm proud of them, too, but there's no US soldier anywhere fighting for our freedom over here. Let's just try and keep that straight.

The US is under no threat from any state right now and hasn't been since the end of the Cold War.

Nice. Have you forgotten............??? Never mind, don't answer that - it's clear you have.

 

[nightowlky]

Got a problem with the truth? Our soldiers are being used as pawns by a small group of people who have achieved the pinnacle of their goals (the neoconservatives, esp. those forming the groups PNAC and WINEP)

How was Iraq a threat to the US? What weapons did Saddam possess that could have struck the US? Those non-existing WMDs? Some strongly-worded letters?

Now, Iran is a potential threat but that's only potential. Best estimates are 5-10 years before they have even a single nuclear weapon. Makes you wonder why Sec. Rice is telling Iran they have but weeks to comply.

 

[transparant]

I'm proud of them, too

Are you?? Really, are you? What are you proud of them for - to you...they really aren't doing anything. They aren't fighting for anything to you.

 

[goofy's friends]

The US is under no threat from any state right now and hasn't been since the end of the Cold War.

Again, Are you kidding me????????

 

[MagicKingdom05]

Ok. Lets agree to disagree and move on. The reason that the OP posted this was to give a shout out to our military for what they did, not start a verbal war. We are getting away from why this thread was started in the first place. It's good to debate, but when it starts getting personal, it's time to move on.

 

[nightowlky]

Are you?? Really, are you? What are you proud of them for - to you...they really aren't doing anything. They aren't fighting for anything to you.

I'm proud of the way they have stood up to the worst of possible conditions. Being placed in a no-win situation by men who never wore a uniform, much less set foot on a battlefield.

Can you imagine how secure the US's borders and ports would be if the $300 billion already spent on Iraq were spent here? And that's not to mention the $1-2 trillion that the injured veterans will require in treatment and therapy for years to come (and for which they will have to fight tooth and nail for due to an administration that has made it harder and harder for veterans to receive proper healthcare they deserve, without paying through the nose for)

 

[nightowlky]

Again, Are you kidding me????????

What threat was faced by the US in Iraq? Please tell.

 

[transparant]

I agree with Magickingdom - I'm not going to argue with you. Our men and women are doing a FABULOUS job on the war on terror. I am VERY proud of them and I THANK them from the bottom of my heart for fighting for our FREEDOM.

 

[nightowlky]

Well, believe what you want but the majority of America knows the truth.


I'll bid you all a good night.

 

[arminnie]

I have never had conversations with anyone that has had 1st hand accounts of WW2, but I'm sure I know some.

Just to correct you however, you might want to reread my post. To save you the trouble, I'll paste it below. Take notice of the word "MOST."

I'm almost as old as your mother (1946). I have a confession. I hadn't had that many conversations about WWII until about 10-15 years ago. I've taken my Dad to several of his Navy reunions (he was on a ship in the Pacific for 4 years). Plus I took my mother to one of her Navy reunions before she died.

It's really fascinating to see what they went through and how different the country was. FDR is revered by many, but I have several friends slightly older than I am who were interred in camps because they were Japanese. He's not exactly their favorite.

Here's my second confession. I've had virtually no conversations with anyone who was in Viet Nam - and I am right in that age bracket. I went to a women's college and worked for a company that did government work and did deferrals for male employees. My male relatives were either too old or too young to go.

Thanks for your reference to the word "most". I forget (being so old myself) that these WWII vets to your generation are sort of like WWI vets would be to me.

Two of my college roommates had mothers who came to the U.S. as young teenagers to escape Hitler. Being Jewish ALL of their families were exterminated. I guess the deaths of some of today's terrorists to me is be more like the death of Hitler - an evil person who is gone and can't do more harm. I don't think of it as a celebration - just a relief.

 

[eclectics]

I'm very glad he got stopped (dead or alive, didn't matter much to me). Sadly, there are many willing to step right into his shoes and continue the terror. The insurgents will not stop until their objective is met. I hope no one is lulled into "mission accomplished" mode by this. This is far from over. We are going to be stuck over there for a long, long, time.