Yahoo! News:
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Al-Qaeda's chief in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been killed in an air strike, with US and Iraqi officials hailing the news as a major blow against the network's bid to destabilise the country.
The US military said Zarqawi was killed in an air strike on a safe house north of Baghdad where he was holding a meeting with fellow militants, ending years of hunting for the country's most wanted -- and elusive -- fugitive.
This is excellent news. Truly fantastic. Of course, there are plenty of nay-sayers out there who will say that the administration sat on this until they needed it, but this is good news nonetheless. This will certainly take some steam out of the insurgency.
But for now, I've little time for advanced analysis. Captain Ed and Michelle Malkin have great roundups (with my hat-tip to the Captain).
9 comments:
That's a good time. Still a long, long way to go, but putting a stop to Zarqawi is most certainly good times.
Is it a sign that I screw around on the internet too much that when I saw that thing from Fox that had a stock photo of Zarqawi with the large headline "Dead" that I was kind of confused as to why it didn't say "Pwn3d"?
That's great, but who's to say that the new figurehead won't be worse? To put it in terms you might understand: if Bush got assassinated, that would leave Dick Cheney, which would make you happy, but would probably be worse for every other country.
I just don't see how killing one terrorist helps anything. He's a martyr now, and for that single death, many new terrorists will be born.
I think you're underestimating these Muslim extremists' disdain for Christian extremists like you. They most likely have a "next in line."
It it really this hard for you to relate?
Christian extremist? What does that even mean? How did I earn such a label?
Weird.
Anyhow, don't take my word for it. Read some freaking newspapers, such as this Washington Post article.
To say that killing a high-ranking enemy commander will have no effect is silly and represents denial.
There's already a new leader, according to the New York Times, which I think is a newspaper.
The Christian extremist view is based on your celebration of the death of a fellow human being. I thought it was God's job to judge who was good/bad, but apparently you're his proxy.
Did you even know Zarqawi? I thought he was doing a great job fighting fascism. What do you think?
Will you be happy when they get the new guy? I heard that this guy even knows how to use a gun, which is more than we can say for Zarqawi.
Yeah, they said on the first day that a new guy had been appointed. So? I don't think that negates the point that people in the intelligence community make.
So, the man liked to blow up civilians, or saw their heads off. Y'know, whichever he was feeling up to that day. You would say it is wrong to celebrate that he can't do it anymore?
I would guess that our military has killed more civilians than Zarqawi ever did (estimates are around 40,000...roughly half of Evanston). Who do you hold accountable for that? Somebody orders those air strikes...would you celebrate their death as well? Does your attitude make you responsible? Do you hold George Bush accountable? Just because bombs are impersonal doesn't mean there isn't someone responsible.
We had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq unilaterally in the first place, so it seems to me that Zarqawi was justified to respond to senseless killing with a little bit of his own. I can't fault him for that.
For celebrating this death, you might be a fascist...but you are most certainly a hypocrite if you call yourself a Christian.
*grabs popcorn*
Murphy, perhaps you can coax a rebuttal...
...or take a side and be the tiebreaker.
Apparently Hal's too busy curing some neurodegenerative disease to pay me any attention.
Hal: God told me he doesn't want you messing with neurodegeneracy. (It took him a long time to come up with effective means of population control.)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose death was recently announced as a victory by American forces, could have been killed or captured a long time ago. He was deliberately allowed to operate in the American patrolled no-fly zone. There is speculation that he was not interfered with because his base provided justification for connecting the invasion of Iraq to the "War on Terror.
They fooled you again, Hal!
Post a Comment