Fox Reports Al-Zarqawi may be dead

[vtbub]

They just broke into the Colts/Bengals game on the radio to report that Al-Zarqawi may have been killed in a firefight yesterday.

[vtbub]

http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/jplogo.gifReport: al-Zarqawi may have been killed in Mosul

<hr size="1"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST </td><td align="right">Nov. 20, 2005</td></tr></tbody></table><hr size="1">The Elaph Arab media website reported on Sunday that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq terror group, may have been killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred while coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding. American and Iraqi forces are looking into the report.

<hr size="1"><script language="JavaScript"> OAS_AD('LeaderBrd'); </script><!-- FASTCLICK.COM 468x60 and 728x90 Banner CODE for jpost.com --> <script language=\"javascript\" src="http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=16372&m=1&tp=5&d=j&t=n"></script><iframe src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N2790.FastClick.com/B1744978.3;sz=728x90;click=http://cmedia5.an.sb.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=42423&mid=86592&sid=16372&m=1&c=0&forced_click=;ord=20051120215956?" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" bordercolor="#000000" frameborder="0" height="90" scrolling="no" width="728"></iframe> <noscript> http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=16372&m=1&tp=5&d=s&c=1 (http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=16372&m=1&c=1)</noscript> <!-- FASTCLICK.COM 468x60 and 728x90 Banner CODE for jpost.com --> <noscript>Back to the Article ("]http://ads.jpost.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.jpost.com/NewsME@Top,LeaderBrd,Top1,Top2,Top3,TopRight,Article1,Position1!LeaderBrd[/url]</noscript> <hr size="1">This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[ [url="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) ]

<hr size="1"> Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

[ISiddiqui]

Need more verification... IIRC, Al Zarqawi has been claimed to be dead before.

[Joe]

i heard that earlier today. but he probably sneaked out.

[Easy Mac]

Sounds good, but this is like the 30th time it's been reported he's dead, so I'll believe it when I see Marlon Brando carrying his head on a stick.

[Joe]

Need more verification... IIRC, Al Zarqawi has been claimed to be dead before.

this could very well be the 50th time

[Dutch]

The word "may" in any news report is usually good enough reason to call the bullshit police.

I believe it when they replace the word "may" with "confirmed".

[panerd]

There must be some bad news for the administration coming out tomorrow.

[vtbub]

What has given this story some legs is that someone in the government told the AP that they may have got him, FWIW.

[GrantDawg]

What has given this story some legs is that someone in the government told the AP that they may have got him, FWIW.

Someone in the administration also said they found proof of weapons of mass destruction about a thousand times. We'll see.

[Flasch186]

I pray that this is true!!

[Joe]

It is interesting to note that people very close to al-Zarqawi were used in the Jordan bombings. That implies that he is having problems recruiting trusted "martyrs" and that things may be closing in on him.

[Easy Mac]

I pray that this is true!!
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but praying for the death of someone sounds un-Christian and a lot like something Muslim terrorists would say. Not that you're a terrorist, just noting the similarities of the statements.

[Solecismic]

There's only one target they can get at this point who matters, and that's the original baddie, Bin Laden.

I can imagine the rest of the Muslim world is getting more than a little fed up with all the collateral damage from these suicide attacks, though. It has to stop at some point.

Plus, they're running out of virgins to give to these people. At 72 virgins a pop, there are only so many bombings you can fund. Some of the "virgins" they're using right now, well, I don't think they're exactly what the terrorists were bargaining for.

[panerd]

Plus, they're running out of virgins to give to these people. At 72 virgins a pop, there are only so many bombings you can fund. Some of the "virgins" they're using right now, well, I don't think they're exactly what the terrorists were bargaining for.


My elementary school librarian comes to mind.

[AlexB]

Like someone over hear said why would you kill yourself for 72 virgins who didn;t know what they were doing? I'd much rather have 72 complete sluts!

[Galaxy]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but praying for the death of someone sounds un-Christian and a lot like something Muslim terrorists would say. Not that you're a terrorist, just noting the similarities of the statements.

Huh?

[Flasch186]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but praying for the death of someone sounds un-Christian and a lot like something Muslim terrorists would say. Not that you're a terrorist, just noting the similarities of the statements.

nope, no sarcasm here (ridiculous to think so anyways) and he is evil, has cut someone's head off on tape....I hope he is dead or dies. Clearly stated. Just like I wouldve prayed for Hitler's death, or Kim Jung Il's, there's a bunch of people who IMO deserve to die if they cant be taken alive.

[Anthony]

i don't want death to people like that guy Zarqwi. i want prolonged pain. death is merciful, pain is more fun for people like him. pain is more of a deterent.

i also condone and wish for pain for the family members of these terrorists. i condone hunting their family members and, starting with the youngest, injecting them with the AIDS virus or other types of fatal virus'. something where you could really see deterioration of a body.

you don't get points for taking the higher ground. you get points for winning wars and bringing an end to terror. someone's little nephew or daugter is worth sacrificing for the greater good.

[Easy Mac]

Then according to the people in this thread, what exactly have the terrorists done wrong? If the ends justify the means, then I can't possibly see how anyone could say they were wrong for 9/11.

Again not sympathizing with terrorists, but if we're not trying to show we're better, what's the point?

[stevew]

The fact that they killed 5 in the firefight, and then the last 3 remaining in the place alledgedly put on suicide vests and blew themselves up, leads at least some form of creedence to the fact that it was a high level insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter guy in the location of the raid.

[jeff061]

i also condone and wish for pain for the family members of these terrorists. i condone hunting their family members and, starting with the youngest, injecting them with the AIDS virus or other types of fatal virus'. something where you could really see deterioration of a body.

Here's hoping your uncle goes on a homicidal rampage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then according to the people in this thread, what exactly have the terrorists done wrong?

I assume you mean other than fuck with the wrong people?

[Chubby]

I assume you mean other than fuck with the wrong people?
good thing the terrorists aren't saying the same thing :rolleyes:

[Glengoyne]

good thing the terrorists aren't saying the same thing :rolleyes:
These particular terrorists aren't saying anything right now. So they certainly fucked with some of the wrong people.

[Flasch186]

good thing the terrorists aren't saying the same thing :rolleyes:

Look, they declared war, they dont negotiate so they should die. Thats how war works.

[TroyF]

good thing the terrorists aren't saying the same thing :rolleyes:


I'm not sure I understand this. They ARE saying the same thing. They want death to anyone who opposes their viewpoint.

We aren't talking about a damned PTA group that's out of control. We are talking about a group of people who declared war and take pride in killing those against them.

If we could all meet in a room and hammer out a nice peace treaty, that'd be just swell.

That aint happening. Until it does, I'm all for killing as many of them as we can. I don't "like" or "enjoy" feeling like that. But this is war, not something I have to enjoy. It is what it is.

[Greyroofoo]

I hope that he's dead and that it means the troops can come home.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Whatever happened to this guy named Bin Laden?

[jeff061]

He died a while back.

[sachmo71]

Nice symbolic victory, but not much more. Another will step in to fill his place, unfortunately.

[SFL Cat]

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[Dutch]

I agree. However, the White House is saying the source of this news is not credible.

[Grammaticus]

FOXFAN CENTRAL
No Confirmation Zarqawi Was Killed in Raid
Sunday, November 20, 2005


BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected Al Qaeda members died in a gunfight — some by their own hand to avoid capture. The White House said Sunday that it was "highly unlikely" that the terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

- Looks like we missed him

[MrBigglesworth]

i don't want death to people like that guy Zarqwi. i want prolonged pain. death is merciful, pain is more fun for people like him. pain is more of a deterent.

i also condone and wish for pain for the family members of these terrorists. i condone hunting their family members and, starting with the youngest, injecting them with the AIDS virus or other types of fatal virus'. something where you could really see deterioration of a body.

you don't get points for taking the higher ground. you get points for winning wars and bringing an end to terror. someone's little nephew or daugter is worth sacrificing for the greater good.
Stalin could not have said it any better. You would go far in the old Soviet Russia, comrade. Kudos.

[Anthony]

Stalin could not have said it any better. You would go far in the old Soviet Russia, comrade. Kudos.

this is supposed to be what? an insult?

keep on pretending that you would rather the man who raped your daughter have justice brought upon him rather than the sweet spot of a bat. keep pretending you would rather see the drunk driver who hit and killed your mom go to jail, rather than being able to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with him.

i keep it real. i don't try to pretend i have any moral high ground. moral high ground is for priests and boyscouts.

[Izulde]

this is supposed to be what? an insult?

keep on pretending that you would rather the man who raped your daughter have justice brought upon him rather than the sweet spot of a bat. keep pretending you would rather see the drunk driver who hit and killed your mom go to jail, rather than being able to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with him.

i keep it real. i don't try to pretend i have any moral high ground. moral high ground is for priests and boyscouts.

There's a difference between not taking the moral high ground and assassinating every family member, which is fucking stupid. Who's to say that everybody in the family agrees with the one you have issue with?

Man, the more and more you post, the more and more I know you're the biggest fucking assfuck doubletalking moron I've ever run across... and I've run across some real dipshits in my day.

[Hurst2112]

i don't want death to people like that guy Zarqwi. i want prolonged pain. death is merciful, pain is more fun for people like him. pain is more of a deterent.

i also condone and wish for pain for the family members of these terrorists. i condone hunting their family members and, starting with the youngest, injecting them with the AIDS virus or other types of fatal virus'. something where you could really see deterioration of a body.

you don't get points for taking the higher ground. you get points for winning wars and bringing an end to terror. someone's little nephew or daugter is worth sacrificing for the greater good.


I disagree with this quote 1000% but that doesn't make me like HA any less.

[MrBigglesworth]

this is supposed to be what? an insult?

keep on pretending that you would rather the man who raped your daughter have justice brought upon him rather than the sweet spot of a bat. keep pretending you would rather see the drunk driver who hit and killed your mom go to jail, rather than being able to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with him.

i keep it real. i don't try to pretend i have any moral high ground. moral high ground is for priests and boyscouts.
There is a difference between what we want to do, and what needs to be done in a lawful society. I find it ironic that some terrorist is taking this same attitude to justify his suicide bombing somewhere.

[jeff061]

keep on pretending that you would rather the man who raped your daughter have justice brought upon him rather than the sweet spot of a bat. keep pretending you would rather see the drunk driver who hit and killed your mom go to jail, rather than being able to spend 5 minutes alone in a room with him.

Damn straight I'd like to get some time alone with them. Not sure what that has to do with family. It's a little disturbing that you see quite possibly innocent people as nothing but tools to cause pain. Good, you've tortured a family member and al-Zaqawi is hurt because of it. What about that, for the sake of this argument, innocent family member?

[Anthony]

Damn straight I'd like to get some time alone with them. Not sure what that has to do with family. It's a little disturbing that you see quite possibly innocent people as nothing but tools to cause pain. Good, you've tortured a family member and al-Zaqawi is hurt because of it. What about that, for the sake of this argument, innocent family member?

well, if i were a militant extremist Muslim youth, i would think long and hard before listening to extremist propaganda and ask if 70 virgins was worth risking my family's life over.

simple death doesn't work in an environment where the other side are all too willing to kill themselves for their cause. they've essentially admitted that there's little value to their own lives. this is basically threatening to murder someone who is considering suicide. so, you have to shift the focus on to things that *do* have value in their lives.

this isn't a conventional war. this isn't sovereign state vs. sovereign state, two tangible forces. the opponent is a nebulus enemy that walks among the civilians. there aren't any communication centers to bomb. no military barracks to destroy. no visible command centers to attack. there is no tangible enemy, this much we all can agree on. you can't fight an unconventional war conventionally. this is why we lost this war (or will be perceived as losing). as the Russians had to eventually leave Afghanistan, so too, will the American have to leave Iraq. all because we lacked the fortitude to take things to the next level. our global image has taken a huge hit, but that's ok, because we get to win the award for "most gentlemanly fighters". we can't even humiliate our POWs without our own media lashing out at our military. we're fighting a war where the enemy is beheading their hostages - and we went screaming over a couple of pics of Arabs in leashes.

if we aren't gonna do shit right, we should just leave shit alone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

all because we lacked the fortitude to take things to the next level.

Damn HA, you're starting to sound more & more like me. ;)

[jeff061]

I'm all for bringing out the big guns and not being so cautious about collateral damage. Targeting them is something else though.

[Anthony]

Damn HA, you're starting to sound more & more like me. ;)

like i said, other than presenting our arguements a little differently and you being more of a black/white type of person (you call for the same punishment regardless of whether the crime was major or minor, for instance - piracy; i'm more of a "let the punishment fit the crime" type), but i've come to agree with a lot of your posts. too many, in fact, to be coincidence.

i've mentioned it before - i can accept you because i can take you at face value. you're a what you see is what you get. i know exactly what i'm dealing with when i read your posts. this is not like reading all this other happy go lucky, we're supposed to be better than the barbarians nonsense that others believe in. i'm keeping it real, whereas for a lot of these people - keeping the higher moral ground is something that is easy to conceptualize when you haven't been put in a situation to think otherwise. it's easy to envision fighting a gentleman's war when your family members weren't killed in suicide bombings or your loved one wasn't beheaded. but, and here's the big part, would they still feel the same way if these atrocities were to happen to people they loved? that's not so certain. could they maintain this higher ground seeing the rapist who savaged their 10 year old daughter smile smugly in the courtroom, showing no remorse? the answer will likely surprise even them. i can bet a lot of money on the fact that in some dark part of their brain they would want to administer pain and death to their foes, and likely to the things that matter most to their foes.

so, this is the difference between myself and others in this thread. i come honest - i can imagine my pain and anguish over losing a loved one to a terrorist without having to actually experience it. i don't burden myself with having to "be better than them". it isn't a responsibility i signed up for. but you know what you're getting with me. i can go to that dark place inside me, and freely share my thoughts. i don't put up this "high moral ground" facade, only to tear it down once something hits a little too close to home. there are a lot of people who are being fake here - some not as intentionally as others. it isn't my responsibility to be the bigger man once you've brought pain to myself or my loved ones. it's the responsibility of the law to make sure you're as far away from me as possible and to put you behind bars so i can't get to you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

you're a what you see is what you get.

Although I was shooting for the easy laugh earlier, this is really what it comes down to, the similarity I was talking about.

When you're being "the real HA", not the "playing for a laugh HA character", there's not much doubt where you stand ... and that's a plus IMO.

i come honest

Beats any other way all to hell & gone.

[sachmo71]

I've thought about this before, and I'm still not sure what I would do.

If someone were to kill one of my children, would I actually be able to kill them? It sounds logical, because I love my kids so much, and I know I would be angry and desperate. But when actually faced with it, the prospect of another person losing a life seems wasteful. Even if it is a piece of crap that took the person that I care about most from me away in a horrible, violent, senseless act, what purpose would it serve? I doubt that I would feel better. I personally believe killing is wrong, so I would have to justify betraying my belief system to get revenge. More likely, I think I would still miss my daughter, but I would now have to live with the murder of another human. Also, maybe there is someone in the world who misses this person as much as I do my child? Perhaps I would do it anyway. I feel like if my children were dead, it would be over for me. I'll never know unless that happens. I'll pray that it never does.

It's hard to apply my beliefs to the country as a whole, because there are so many belief systems to take into account. I can only hope that we as a people make good decisions based on who we are and want to be as a people, rather than to act out of fear or how the world will view us.

[MrBigglesworth]

so, this is the difference between myself and others in this thread. i come honest - i can imagine my pain and anguish over losing a loved one to a terrorist without having to actually experience it. i don't burden myself with having to "be better than them". it isn't a responsibility i signed up for. but you know what you're getting with me. i can go to that dark place inside me, and freely share my thoughts. i don't put up this "high moral ground" facade, only to tear it down once something hits a little too close to home. there are a lot of people who are being fake here - some not as intentionally as others. it isn't my responsibility to be the bigger man once you've brought pain to myself or my loved ones. it's the responsibility of the law to make sure you're as far away from me as possible and to put you behind bars so i can't get to you.
Shorter HA: "I don't have to take the moral high ground, because you all are liars." Irony always brings a smile to my face.

[MalcPow]

so, this is the difference between myself and others in this thread. i come honest - i can imagine my pain and anguish over losing a loved one to a terrorist without having to actually experience it. i don't burden myself with having to "be better than them". it isn't a responsibility i signed up for. but you know what you're getting with me. i can go to that dark place inside me, and freely share my thoughts. i don't put up this "high moral ground" facade, only to tear it down once something hits a little too close to home. there are a lot of people who are being fake here - some not as intentionally as others. it isn't my responsibility to be the bigger man once you've brought pain to myself or my loved ones. it's the responsibility of the law to make sure you're as far away from me as possible and to put you behind bars so i can't get to you.

You'd be surprised at the control that comes with these things sometimes, and the strength of some people's character under incredible emotional stress. I worked in a prosecutor's office for a little over a year, and you could actually see the power people took from taking responsibility for their reactions to horrible situations, and not simply flailing about with incoherent impulses. Some family members couldn't do this, some could, but you're wrong if you think those that were able to weren't being "honest" with themselves. You're responsible for your actions, and it's just laziness to convince yourself otherwise, the law is there to hold you responsible.

[AlexB]

All this report proves is that if Fox News reported that my newspaper tomorrow would be on white paper and come with black print, I would have to check in the morning before I believed it...

[Anthony]

Shorter HA: "I don't have to take the moral high ground, because you all are liars." Irony always brings a smile to my face.

not quite. my stance is "this is how i feel, regardless of whether terrorists have brought harm to my loved ones or endangered my safety." everyone else is using the luxury of not having to witness their loved one beheaded on the internet to come up with this fairy tail scenario where we should refrain from using all the tools and tricks at our disposal to stop the madness, because "we're better than them".

(fortunately/hopefully) most if not all of you are at that point where you haven't been affected by this war on terror. till that point comes, you have that luxury i spoke about earlier. it's easy to throw around terms like "obligation", "higher moral ground", "have to set an example" and concepts of how a proper civilized society ought to act in war - your world hasn't been challenged yet. i hope it never is. so you speak from that position of luxury, you want to play fair against an enemy who've harmed *other* people's loved ones. my stance is that i don't require something to happen to me, or my loved ones, to know how i'd feel. i don't need to maintain this charade where i place the burden of responsibility on myself. my stance is if the enemy strikes hard - strike them harder. strike them harder to the point where to even consider future aggression would be silly. worst case scenario is you make it that much harder for them to recruit more into their organization.

we've made fools of ourselves on the world stage because we accomplished little other than changing the regime over there. we've substituted having a stable country with unstable leadership - to having stable leaderhsip with an unstable country .we didn't eradicate anything. terror still exists. we didn't handle the situation properly. we fought with our kid gloves on; our leaderhsip fought an enemy that didn't care while keeping their eyes on the headlines and the all-talk/no-action wastes in the UN. you can't fight wars like that.

[Glengoyne]

like i said, other than presenting our arguements a little differently and you being more of a black/white type of person (you call for the same punishment regardless of whether the crime was major or minor, for instance - piracy; i'm more of a "let the punishment fit the crime" type), but i've come to agree with a lot of your posts. too many, in fact, to be coincidence.
...
There is some kinda sick synergy going on between these two here at FOFC.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

You'd be surprised at the control that comes with these things sometimes, and the strength of some people's character under incredible emotional stress. I worked in a prosecutor's office for a little over a year, and you could actually see the power people took from taking responsibility for their reactions to horrible situations, and not simply flailing about with incoherent impulses. Some family members couldn't do this, some could, but you're wrong if you think those that were able to weren't being "honest" with themselves. You're responsible for your actions, and it's just laziness to convince yourself otherwise, the law is there to hold you responsible.

Moreover, it seems silly to have either a foreign policy or a criminal policy based on the emotional reactions of an affected family member. If someone raped my hypothetical daughter, would I like to take a baseball bat to them or strap electrodes to their testicles? Possibly. Should our criminal justice system operate on that basis? I really don't think so. The policy of the criminal justice system should be formulated dispassionately in view of policy objectives and shared values rather than emotional impulses. Likewise foreign policy. I'd like to know that our leaders are rationally evaluating likely long term outcomes to policy decisions rather than rashly pursuing a fleeting sensation of satifying vengeance.

[Anthony]

There is some kinda sick synergy going on between these two here at FOFC.

much to my amazement, yes. i've just learned to throw away some of the more extreme parts of his viewpoints, the parts that tend to rub people the wrong way, and focus on the general gist of where he stands on certain issues. and there is a consistentcy about his posts - consistency is a trait i value. consistency is the absence of surprises. i hate surprises.

[MrBigglesworth]

not quite. my stance is "this is how i feel, regardless of whether terrorists have brought harm to my loved ones or endangered my safety." everyone else is using the luxury of not having to witness their loved one beheaded on the internet to come up with this fairy tail scenario where we should refrain from using all the tools and tricks at our disposal to stop the madness, because "we're better than them".

(fortunately/hopefully) most if not all of you are at that point where you haven't been affected by this war on terror. till that point comes, you have that luxury i spoke about earlier. it's easy to throw around terms like "obligation", "higher moral ground", "have to set an example" and concepts of how a proper civilized society ought to act in war - your world hasn't been challenged yet. i hope it never is. so you speak from that position of luxury, you want to play fair against an enemy who've harmed *other* people's loved ones. my stance is that i don't require something to happen to me, or my loved ones, to know how i'd feel. i don't need to maintain this charade where i place the burden of responsibility on myself. my stance is if the enemy strikes hard - strike them harder. strike them harder to the point where to even consider future aggression would be silly. worst case scenario is you make it that much harder for them to recruit more into their organization.
I'm not even going to waste my time arguing the con side of fascism and the medieval justice system. I will say though that your timeline is completely off, which negates your whole logic. We have been screwing with the middle east for centuries, and many of them have decided to take your attitude: strike back with violence and the death of anyone associated with anyone who ever screwed with them. We are not innocent bystanders in all of this. By your logic the people who died in the Towers were legitimate targets of people who felt they had to strike back harder. The escalation of violence then by your system continues unabated until one side wipes the other out. The house of cards that is your argument crashes and falls based on that simple fact.

we've made fools of ourselves on the world stage because we accomplished little other than changing the regime over there. we've substituted having a stable country with unstable leadership - to having stable leaderhsip with an unstable country .we didn't eradicate anything. terror still exists. we didn't handle the situation properly. we fought with our kid gloves on; our leaderhsip fought an enemy that didn't care while keeping their eyes on the headlines and the all-talk/no-action wastes in the UN. you can't fight wars like that.
You were so close! You had every reason why the war was a bad idea, from poor planning to not accomplishing anything to the damage it did to us in international relations. Then you took those facts and came to the conclusion that we just didn't kill enough people, and that if more people had died the war would, by magic presumably, be going swimmingly. I had a glimmer of hope for a second there.

[Anthony]

Moreover, it seems silly to have either a foreign policy or a criminal policy based on the emotional reactions of an affected family member. If someone raped my hypothetical daughter, would I like to take a baseball bat to them or strap electrodes to their testicles? Possibly. Should our criminal justice system operate on that basis? I really don't think so. The policy of the criminal justice system should be formulated dispassionately in view of policy objectives and shared values rather than emotional impulses. Likewise foreign policy. I'd like to know that our leaders are rationally evaluating likely long term outcomes to policy decisions rather than rashly pursuing a fleeting sensation of satifying vengeance.

my viewpoint is this - post 9/11 the threat was (widely) viewed as eminating from Afghanistan. that's where we, as a nation, focused our energies because that's where Al Quaida was operating from, and the Afghan leadership was allowing these organizations free reign. so we went in and cleaned up shop. fine. America was all on the same page, we got vindication, the world was ripe with pro-American sentiment. then we went to Iraq and brought the fight to them. the world was against that. in order to appease the world we didn't fight the enemy properly or to our fullest extent. trying to apply rational thought and conventional ways of fighting to an irrational enemy that fought unconventionally - that was our undoing.

[Anthony]

I'm not even going to waste my time arguing the con side of fascism and the medieval justice system. I will say though that your timeline is completely off, which negates your whole logic. We have been screwing with the middle east for centuries, and many of them have decided to take your attitude: strike back with violence and the death of anyone associated with anyone who ever screwed with them. We are not innocent bystanders in all of this. By your logic the people who died in the Towers were legitimate targets of people who felt they had to strike back harder. The escalation of violence then by your system continues unabated until one side wipes the other out. The house of cards that is your argument crashes and falls based on that simple fact.


You were so close! You had every reason why the war was a bad idea, from poor planning to not accomplishing anything to the damage it did to us in international relations. Then you took those facts and came to the conclusion that we just didn't kill enough people, and that if more people had died the war would, by magic presumably, be going swimmingly. I had a glimmer of hope for a second there.

in the past i'd have debated you till either you passed out or i was boxed. i do things differently now. i think i've presented a rather consistent arguement on how i feel - writing anymore will be mere repetition. all i ask for now is a way for America to effectively pull out of Iraq saving as much face as possible.

[MrBigglesworth]

trying to apply rational thought and conventional ways of fighting to an irrational enemy that fought unconventionally - that was our undoing.
What makes them irrational? That sounds like, "I don't understand their viewpoint, so let's kill them".

[Anthony]

What makes them irrational? That sounds like, "I don't understand their viewpoint, so let's kill them".

you and i are rational - we don't agree with each other's viewpoints, and neither will change the other's opinion. we accept that and move on. they are irrational in the sense that anyone that doesn't adhere to their way of life is the enemy. and they do bad things to the enemy. we try to minimize collateral damage and try to target only the enemy. they insist on taking the fight to the streets and wind up killing as many innocents as possible. they distort their religious teachings to allow them to morally get away with commiting acts of atrocities. they've beheaded people who were down there for no other reason than to help rebuild the country. that's rational to you?

[MrBigglesworth]

you and i are rational - we don't agree with each other's viewpoints, and neither will change the other's opinion. we accept that and move on. they are irrational in the sense that anyone that doesn't adhere to their way of life is the enemy. and they do bad things to the enemy. we try to minimize collateral damage and try to target only the enemy. they insist on taking the fight to the streets and wind up killing as many innocents as possible. they distort their religious teachings to allow them to morally get away with commiting acts of atrocities. they've beheaded people who were down there for no other reason than to help rebuild the country. that's rational to you?
They take the same attitude that you have taken in this thread (i.e., kill or everyone connected to those who you feel have wronged you, eye for an eye justice, etc), yet you are rational while they are irrational? Furthermore, your previous post said that we should have taken off the gloves and killer more people in order to win the war, and in this post you are applauding us for trying to minimize collateral damage. That's not keeping things 'honest', HA.

[Anthony]

They take the same attitude that you have taken in this thread (i.e., kill or everyone connected to those who you feel have wronged you, eye for an eye justice, etc), yet you are rational while they are irrational? Furthermore, your previous post said that we should have taken off the gloves and killer more people in order to win the war, and in this post you are applauding us for trying to minimize collateral damage. That's not keeping things 'honest', HA.

well, they randomly kill innocents. i'm for targeting the family members of terrorists. we should expand our intelligence in that area to allow us to find and capture the family members of terrorists. not as random. the culture there is join a terrorist cell and become a martyr/hero. we need to make it so that if you become a terrorist you put your family at risk.

in poker this is called "raising the stakes".

[jeff061]

They are not randomly killing innocents. They are killing innocents associated with their enemy. Hmmm, that sounds familiar....

[MrBigglesworth]

in poker this is called "raising the stakes".
In world history, this is called "Stalinism".

[Joe Canadian]

so, this is the difference between myself and others in this thread. i come honest

STFU, I'm sick & tired of people on this board thinking that I'm somehow not honest because I don't accept prejudice or that I don't think we should brutally kill terroirsts. Look, I get your opinion... I may strongly disagree with it, but I get it... I get that you're trying to express your opinions strongly, that's fine. But don't come with this bullshit that if I disagree with you I'm not telling the truth, or I'm disagreeing with you to look like I'm more "PC".