al-Zarqawi to US: Neener neener. You can't get...
BOOM!
(That's right. He's dead. The US bombed his dumb ass last night. On the very same day the newly democratically elected Iraqi government (which, btw, he tried to prevent from forming and failed miserably), completed the appointments and basically completed the formation of the government.
The news may be all over the place, why the hell dont you grow up and start posting something like a SOURCE in order to support your story here
And for heavens sake stop your "praise USA" and **** others attitude
You dont even deserve to be the age you are now 
| scorpio wrote: |
The news may be all over the place, why the hell dont you grow up and start posting something like a SOURCE in order to support your story here
And for heavens sake stop your "praise USA" and **** others attitude
You dont even deserve to be the age you are now |
The enragement is deep with this one! 
Here's the link to the CNN posted video of the precision air strike that killed (hopefully slowly) the above mentioned turdball...
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/06/08/vo.zarqawi.bomb.dod
You must really hate this Al-Zalzalzal well you get the point, Alkasomething.
This was front page in the paper: Al-Zarqawi Death, They even had live coverage on news channels and so on.
Obviously he is a terrorist, Because he sided with them and got involved, I'll tell you an unbelievable story that occured a few weeks ago.
My French Teacher seems to think the guy is just a innocent scapegoat because he's just O's Personal Physician.
The jig is up! And here I thought, looking at the videos, he died instantly. There always seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. 
| Reuters UK wrote: |
Zarqawi was alive after bombing - U.S. general
Fri Jun 9, 2006 2:27 PM BST13
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was alive and made a move to escape when U.S. troops reached the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, mortally wounded in an American bombing raid, a U.S. general said on Friday. |
But IBMaj.Gen.WilliamCaldwellischargedwithmurder
| alkady wrote: |
| You must really hate this Al-Zalzalzal well you get the point, Alkasomething. |
Yup. He's a coward.
| Quote: |
| My French Teacher seems to think the guy is just a innocent scapegoat because he's just O's Personal Physician. |
That doesn't suprise me. Is your French teacher French?
Seriously, the guy was convicted and sentance to death for bombing a wedding in his own country. He slowly (took 7 minutes) cut off Berg's head on TV. He's killed or responsible for the deaths of scores of thousands of Iraqi civilians including women and children.
Yeah. He's dead. It's a good thing.
Next?? Al-Zarquawi is dead. I think this is most likely a good thing for all of humanity - he wasn't exactly a very nice guy. The US tactics are my concern though.
When was it ever legal / constitutional / morally-correct to murder someone? The US don't like the guy, so they blow him up along with his house. The US didn't like Saddam Hussein, but he's alive and well in captivity as-per international law. What happens in the case of a serial killer in the US? Are they executed without trial? Nope - human rights and international law would intervene.
As I said, the world is a better place now that he's dead, but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner?
| Animal wrote: |
| but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
Bush goes straight to God to get his marching orders. Didn’t you know? | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Animal wrote: | | but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
Bush goes straight to God to get his marching orders. Didn’t you know? |
Yeah, and just think, if he'd have just left well enough alone in the ME, he'd be getting his marching orders straight from Allah.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: | | Animal wrote: | | but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
Bush goes straight to God to get his marching orders. Didn’t you know? |
Yeah, and just think, if he'd have just left well enough alone in the ME, he'd be getting his marching orders straight from Allah. |
Same thing.
When you follow a fictional character, you’re actually following your own neuroses. | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | The Philosopher Princess wrote: | | Animal wrote: | | but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
Bush goes straight to God to get his marching orders. Didn’t you know? |
Yeah, and just think, if he'd have just left well enough alone in the ME, he'd be getting his marching orders straight from Allah. |
Same thing.
When you follow a fictional character, you’re actually following your own neuroses. |
You guys have it all wrong. Al-BillCosby was a holly warrior for allah. His job, like the others, is to make war on the infidels. Allah has been busy so these guys like to help out when they can.
Bush is the leader of the infidels so it is his job, being at war, to kill the other side’s warriors. However, Bush is in cahoots with the devil, not for world domination as it would seem, that is the trick, but to oppress the homosexuals.
The only ones working for god are the sea people. They know the end is near so they just stay out of the way and help fund American Idle.
Sources you say? How did I find out all this stuff. Elvis told me last time I accidentally took my morning meds in the evening with alcohol.
And S3nd K3ys, Hank Hill is gona kick your asss if he sees that picture. Texans don’t drink imported beer.Good one! I love it when A Joke gets things going that the rest of us can continue. | Animal wrote: |
Al-Zarquawi is dead. I think this is most likely a good thing for all of humanity - he wasn't exactly a very nice guy. The US tactics are my concern though.
When was it ever legal / constitutional / morally-correct to murder someone? The US don't like the guy, so they blow him up along with his house. The US didn't like Saddam Hussein, but he's alive and well in captivity as-per international law. What happens in the case of a serial killer in the US? Are they executed without trial? Nope - human rights and international law would intervene.
As I said, the world is a better place now that he's dead, but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
I think this goes under the lines of an airstrike on a military base as opposed to an execution. It was just a very small military base with mostly non-combatents in it. 
After all the time and US deaths we've had over there its about f'kn time we get one of those head bastards..
Am I the only one who thinks this is not a good thing? (others than people who won't to kill Americans)
Terrorists groups are like a Hydra you cut off one head, two more grow in its place.
Terrorist groups can not be defeated by killing th leader. It will only cause the group to fracture thus making it harder to fight them, infiltrate and so on.
The only way to stop them is to defeat there reasoning. And no military action can do that. Only by focusing on repairing our reputation in the middle east. When they no longer think that were some evil empire that only cares about Israel and oil and wonts to kill all Muslims. Only then would we have won.
Click here to see what Zarqawi did to Nick Berg. Though it is graphic, this should be required viewing for every American age 12 and up. <link removed by wumingsden>
If that didn't work, try this. <link removed by wumingsden> It's right under the picture of "The Political Zoo" a book that make fun of libs and republicas. KNOW YOUR ENEMY
And now he is going to be replaced by some one worse, that if he's is not replaced by more than one person, all just as bad or worse.
Its not enough to know, you must understand.
| CompactHaven wrote: |
| Click here to see what Zarqawi did to Nick Berg. Though it is graphic, this should be required viewing for every American age 12 and up. |
...and if that doesn't work, a prefrontal lobotomy will keep 'em in line... | Animal wrote: |
Al-Zarquawi is dead. I think this is most likely a good thing for all of humanity - he wasn't exactly a very nice guy. The US tactics are my concern though.
When was it ever legal / constitutional / morally-correct to murder someone? The US don't like the guy, so they blow him up along with his house. The US didn't like Saddam Hussein, but he's alive and well in captivity as-per international law. What happens in the case of a serial killer in the US? Are they executed without trial? Nope - human rights and international law would intervene.
As I said, the world is a better place now that he's dead, but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
He was a casualty of war.
Besides we were only helping out Jordan, who sentenced him to detah in absentia ... oh I don't know how many times .... I lost count at 4.
Rumor has it that he may have been alive when we found him, but then he was beaten to death (lhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi) ... now there's justice being done! | damj wrote: |
| Animal wrote: | Al-Zarquawi is dead. I think this is most likely a good thing for all of humanity - he wasn't exactly a very nice guy. The US tactics are my concern though.
When was it ever legal / constitutional / morally-correct to murder someone? The US don't like the guy, so they blow him up along with his house. The US didn't like Saddam Hussein, but he's alive and well in captivity as-per international law. What happens in the case of a serial killer in the US? Are they executed without trial? Nope - human rights and international law would intervene.
As I said, the world is a better place now that he's dead, but who gave the US permission to be judge, jury and executioner? |
He was a casualty of war.
Besides we were only helping out Jordan, who sentenced him to detah in absentia ... oh I don't know how many times .... I lost count at 4.
Rumor has it that he may have been alive when we found him, but then he was beaten to death (lhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi) ... now there's justice being done! |
Um. Yeah.
What REALLY happened was that he was trying to be revived by the people there, including US forces.
Amazing isn't it. That the US values life enough to put their own soldeirs at risk to save civilians, and try to revive the man that so burtally murdered so many women, children and men.
But hey, if you wanna go on believing all the 'hype' about how bad the US is, you go right ahead, it's nothing new. But those who know will keep fighting for your freedom to do what you want. | Billy Hill wrote: |
Um. Yeah.
What REALLY happened was that he was trying to be revived by the people there, including US forces.
Amazing isn't it. That the US values life enough to put their own soldeirs at risk to save civilians, and try to revive the man that so burtally murdered so many women, children and men.
But hey, if you wanna go on believing all the 'hype' about how bad the US is, you go right ahead, it's nothing new. But those who know will keep fighting for your freedom to do what you want. |
Yeah .... that's the ticket ... they were doing CPR by jumping on his chest. Don't get me wrong ... I agree with them ... however I have more compassion than that ... I would've just shot him.
It was better for the U.S. not to take him alive and have another 3 ring circus. Either way, he was going to die, but if he went to trial first, he would've been a Cause Celeb for al-Qaeda and they would've have rallied around him. Let them have their martyr and move on.So, let me get this straight.
The US values life and freedom so much that it sent its soldiers to rescue and blah blah blah... of other countries.
On the other hand, the fine citizens of the US (as in the last 2 posters) (And by US, I'm talking about the same US that sent its soldiers to .... blah blah) support brutally beating a man to death. Interesting.
I wonder if Osama and those other real terrorists would have been similarly proud of his men stomping on his brutally injured enemies' chests. Probably.
Woah there! Did I just find a similarity between the terrorists and the citizens of the US (which sent ITS soldiers to protect life and freedom in ANOTHER country?)
BTW, ummm Billy... talking about those civilians the US is "protecting".. it kinda brings to mind Haditha and those Brits in Guatenamo... I wonder why...
LOL, tigruG. Are you trying to compare US citizens to terrorists? That’s lame.
So a single Iraqi fellow told a story about Americans beating al-zaqawi to death. It must be true. Americans like to beat people to death where everyone can see, even people with valuable information before a proper interrogation. They were probably told by their superiors, “You go make sure that camel kisser is dead”. Instead of evacuating the man and ‘allowing’ him to died enroot to the hospital or something they decided, “lets just jump up and down on the geezer”.
Regardless, your attempts to alike US citizens with terrorists is tasteless. The US society is extremely comfortable. Its citizens in general see no reason to harm anyone. Only 30% still support the efforts in Iraq. Thankfully, the systems emplace that made the society so strong are keeping it strong with leaders that don’t immediately sway with public opinion.
Your both generalising.
tidruG: Your taking one example that a few said.
horseatingweedsL Your only looking at the positives.
The truth is every one is different, there are many people who comparable, there are many who are not.
Judge each there own.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
LOL, tigruG. Are you trying to compare US citizens to terrorists? That’s lame.
|
It's not lame. It's the in thing to do.
You see, Bush is worse than Zarqawi. US citizens are the terrorists. The US really flew those planes (actually, one was a missle) into the buildings. Nick Berg cut some Peace Loving Muslim's head off and broadcast it for the world to see, and the USA has been pushing it's damned freedom loving democratic crap on the entire world for over 1,300 years!
I could go on, but you get the point. 
"Dear God,
Please bless me and please give a bucket of gold to anyone who can spell my name right, especially if it's easily verifiable by reading.
Amen" 
(not a personal jab. It's just a mystery to me why hadly anyone seems to get my nickname's spelling right)
| Quote: |
| Are you trying to compare US citizens to terrorists? |
Not all. I'm not generalizing.
| tidruG wrote: |
| On the other hand, the fine citizens of the US (as in the last 2 posters) (And by US, I'm talking about the same US that sent its soldiers to .... blah blah) support brutally beating a man to death. Interesting. |
I just found it pathetically hypocritical and ironic that Hill wrote
| Quote: |
| Amazing isn't it. That the US values life enough to put their own soldeirs at risk to save civilians, and try to revive the man that so burtally murdered so many women, children and men. |
and yet is able to celebrate the fact that a man (even a terrorist, admittedly) had his chest stomped on (if, in fact, he did). If not celebration, it's in a similar vein when you show indifference to such inhuman behaviour.
| Quote: |
| So a single Iraqi fellow told a story about Americans beating al-zaqawi to death. It must be true. |
I never said it must be true. On the contrary, you're assuming that I think it's true. If you read clearly, I've only mentioned "Haditha and those Brits in Guantanamo" The links to verifiable sources for these (not Haditha, but the Brits who commited suicide, among others) can be found it the other post I made regarding Guantanamo.
| Quote: |
| Regardless, your attempts to alike US citizens with terrorists is tasteless. |
I find it tasteless that you can jump onto the defensive so quickly and assume too much from my posts. Like I've said before (a million times, and I personally no longer care if yáll believe me or not), I'm not anti-US. So, stop assuming I am.
I just find it disgusting that a couple of people can even support stomping on another man's chest.
| Quote: |
| The US society is extremely comfortable. |
Even after all the fear-mongering propaganda? Hmm.... Since I heard of Al-Zarqawi's death on the radio, I have been wondering what impact his death will have on the war, either in Iraq or internationally.
I know that Al-Zarqawi was a bad guy and I have no quarrel with the means of his death. I am curious as to what practical effects his death will have. I am certain that we have saved the lives of many people that he would personally have killed, but, as one of the heads of Al-Queada, I do not know if we have crippled their ability to terrorize.
Has anyone found a good report on the effects of his death and what will fill the power gap caused by his death? I have heard that the BBC reported on the subject, but I cannot find the report. Can anyone link to it, or to another credible source?
Thank you.
| trickstott wrote: |
Since I heard of Al-Zarqawi's death on the radio, I have been wondering what impact his death will have on the war, either in Iraq or internationally.
I know that Al-Zarqawi was a bad guy and I have no quarrel with the means of his death. I am curious as to what practical effects his death will have. I am certain that we have saved the lives of many people that he would personally have killed, but, as one of the heads of Al-Queada, I do not know if we have crippled their ability to terrorize.
Has anyone found a good report on the effects of his death and what will fill the power gap caused by his death? I have heard that the BBC reported on the subject, but I cannot find the report. Can anyone link to it, or to another credible source?
Thank you. |
Any time you can take out an opposition leader it's a good thing strategically and generally has profound impact on the moral of those that lost that leader. I'm sure there will be attacks to prove we didn't hurt them. I'm sure they will have someone replace him very quickly. I'm sure we'll continue to be successful so long as the media doesn't succeed in their attempt to lose the war. (Oh, did I say that last part out loud? 
)The occupation will go on until Bush run out of funding. Or lose the election.
| mephisto73 wrote: |
| The occupation will go on until Bush run out of funding. Or lose the election. |
Seriously, mephisto, do yourself a HUGE favor and research the WHO's what's WHEN's and why's we're in Iraq. This was started before Bush and will continue AFTER him. Then do yourself another even BIGGER favor and research how many times a person can run for Pres in the US...
I don't know if I should or at the level of ignorance, so I'll | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Seriously, mephisto, do yourself a HUGE favor and research the WHO's what's WHEN's and why's we're in Iraq. This was started before Bush and will continue AFTER him. Then do yourself another even BIGGER favor and research how many times a person can run for Pres in the US... |
S3nd K3ys i'm not a big fan of google so enlighten me please..
How many times can he actually run for president again?
As for the other one, i think i know the answer.. I believe it was early 1990's, when another man was president.. wait.. it's confusing.. erm.. nope.. it's a whole different person.. it's just the Sr. and Jr. that confused me..
It really wasn't George W. Bush (Jr.) who was President.. it was George W. Bush (Sr.). comically, Iraq was left alone for some year in the meanwhile.
As for the Why the US are in Iraq, i don't really think any of us know. some say it's to stop terrorism, others say it's about the oil... i honestly (and no, it's no joke) think their in Iraq because of the water. I won't try and support my theory on this one, cos it's too much to develop on.
Be Well 
| Bockman wrote: |
How many times can he actually run for president again? |
Wow.
| Quote: |
It really wasn't George W. Bush (Jr.) who was President.. it was George W. Bush (Sr.). comically, Iraq was left alone for some year in the meanwhile.
|
What's comical here (aside from your blatent lack of knowledge or perhaps your ability to accept facts) is that it was Clinton who authorized the current conflict with Iraq.
Not Bush Sr.tidruG,
Perhaps you are misinterpreting Gamj and Billy Hill. I don’t see anything hypocritical. From gamj I gather he disagrees but figures the overall outcome would be the same whether Al billcosby was killed by stomping, shooting or what else. Billy Hill is venting about how ridiculous most of these ‘evil’ American stories are when their troops are trained to protect the non combatants.
Certainly, bad things happen in war, men wear down and do terrible things, this is the human condition. Certain enemies of the US try to portray its soldiers and citizens to be horrible people. It is a key in their recruitment method. The fact is that the US army is probably the most humane army in history. Bringing up an incident here and there is the hypocrisy.
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | The US society is extremely comfortable. |
Even after all the fear-mongering propaganda? Hmm.... |
Do you mean like all those recordings of digging human remains, children and such, out of a pile of rubble that used to be the two tallest structures built by man?
Perhaps the stories about the US embassies being bombed?
Only for a little while. Like after 9/11 it was totally cool to be a patriot and support world efforts. Then we realize that it may require sacrifice on our own part. This is unacceptable. Americans have a very low constitution for blood shed, regardless if it prevents future exponential amounts. Seeing brown people killing brown people is bad, but what can we do. Seeing our soldiers kill brown people, that’s just not cool, yo. Now, seeing brown people killing our soldiers…..now way. Our soldiers should be at home with their families, that’s what we pay them for.
Americans are very comfortable. The orange and yellow alert thing is sort of a joke. No, Americans will be concerned about American Idle more than what sort of hell the rest of the world is in. Yeh, we’ll get famous and get on commercials asking for money to send to Africa, but we have no idea. We prefer to wait until the enemy arrives at our borders fat and board carrying un-tattered standards. Thank God we have a great leadership structure to make up for it, no matter how much we bitch. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The fact is that the US army is probably the most humane army in history. Bringing up an incident here and there is the hypocrisy. |
Is it possible to state objectively that the US army is probably the most humane army in history?
War is not humane, especially pre-emptive strikes based on false intelligence. War is equivalent to murder.
Also, if the incidents are ever proven to be true, they're not hypocritical. All the negative traits of an object/subject also do reflect on that particular object/subject.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Do you mean like all those recordings of digging human remains, children and such, out of a pile of rubble that used to be the two tallest structures built by man?
Perhaps the stories about the US embassies being bombed? |
No, in fact, I was referring to some of President Bush's speeches after the 9/11 attacks. How he constantly urged the American populace to imagine terrorists with WMD capabilities... his constant comparing them to barbarians... his constant refrain that Saddam was building WMDs and had strong links to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 masterminds.
