Most-Wanted Iraq Terrorist Al-Zarqawi Dead

Too bad it won't change anything...

Too bad it won't change anything...

It frees up those troops dedicated to hunting AMA-Z for hunting other HVTs.

No more video tapes then...

Although I'm not a fan of the US involvement in Iraq, I'm also not a far of people who behead hostages.

So, to be frank, f*** him. I'm glad he is dead.

Keld, your propensity for finding the most inane links astounds me.

It frees up those troops dedicated to hunting AMA-Z for hunting other HVTs.

Yes, because a few hundred troops (tops) is really going to add the extra oomph needed to crush the insurgency.

I like your optimism, however it's just a tad reaching.

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased
to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft
of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be
pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off
the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run
down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-TERRORIST!!

Keld, you should really try to read more credible sources. I mean really! Having said that, nothing you do or say anymore can amaze me.

How many are there? That's the tragedy.

The three major worlds religions all worship the God of Abraham. Call him allah. yahweh, jehovah.. it is still the God of Abraham.

Erm ... that was my point!

I'm counting Christianity (generously) as monotheistic although strictly it's tritheistic, if that's a word.

Zeus

Whatever you have to. In this case, he was killed. Good enough for me. :P

Whatever you have to. In this case, he was killed. Good enough for me. :P

Ditto.

I'd rather his virgins be Brian Peppers.

I'm not one for celebrating anyone's death per se.

I am!

U.S. - 2
Terrorists - 0

Saddam and Zarqawi are down, and we've got one more to go. We'll get him.

"Bring 'em on?"

Why are some people so thirsty for blood? The people who rejoice at the death of the terrorists are just below the families of murder victims who call for vengeance on a suspect who hasn't been proved guilty. I know it's not the same thing, but it's the same type of emotionally driven hatred. I am sad for the pain that Al-Zarqawi caused, and sad that his sorry little life had to end in the way it did. I guess I'm just have hope in the potential of all people. Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the general sentiment in this comment thread.

Like Dennis,

I'm not one for celebrating anyone's death per se. I will celebrate the resulting saving of life assuming that is the consequence[.]

And to placate Eric, I'm definitely not "thirsty for blood." At the same time, though, I'm really not sad to see poor Zarqawi go, and don't expect to shed any tears over this. I am very slightly, and (very) cautiously, optimistic that this might improve the situation in Iraq.

U.S. - 2
Terrorists - 0

Last I checked, it was something like:

U.S. - 50,000
Terrorists - 2,500

(This not counting the number of soldiers from other nations that they've killed.)

Acting as though this war is between the so-called "Number 1's and Number 2's" is an awful slap on the face to the people who actually fight these wars. But, at least their number 1's have something at stake.

An eye for an eye leads to two blind men.

An eye for an eye leads to two blind men.

Wouldn't that lead to two men with poor depth perception?

Saddam and Zarqawi are down, and we've got one more to go.

So there's no more reason to be in Iraq. Let's bring those troops home as soon as possible.

Wouldn't that lead to two men with poor depth perception?

Well, I guess I should have mentioned that you don't stop with the first eye. But, good point. An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye.

The only thing I fear is people who will try to "lengthen the life of his name" and start attacking others to "keep his legacy alive." Attacks in that sense. I really do hope the situation gets better though.

I don't know? Do you think he's that popular among his followers?

I'm cautiously optimistic that this will reduce the al-qaeda presence in Iraq and lead to fewer coalition/civilian casualties.

Wishful thinking IMHO. Somebody's already taken his place. When you're a hunted terrorist kingpin, you make plans for succession.

Wouldn't you defend your country killing the invaders and those that support them???

Last ttime I checked, al-Zarqawi was Jordanian not Iraqi. He also killed more Iraqis and other Muslims than he did Americans.

He also killed more Iraqis and other Muslims than he did Americans.

Including a bunch of innocent Jordanians at a wedding in Amman. This didn't sit well with the Jordanian people.

Every country, not just Americans, should be pleased to learn that he will no longer be conducting his atrocities in this world.

Ydontuc

I wonder about you people. You educated and civilised west citizens are celebrating the death of another person.

of course he is a terrorist because he kills Americans.

And Iraqi's and hundreds of Jordanians in attacks on his home country plus countless other nationalities.

Guess they don't count.

Erm, I believe that he was Jordanian and not Iraqi. So he really wasn't fighting for his country at all, just killing people in the country next door and all in the name of God. Now I can't pretend to speak for God even if he and the rest of his band say they do but I am pretty sure God frowns on blowing people up, beheading them and all the various other methods which lead to their demise. Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't the Koran mention that somewhere, possibly in the first few pages.

I remember reading something about Zarqawi's importance being largely a construction of Western media so as to create someone to vilianize in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. I don't have any sources for this, I don't claim it to be at all credible, I don't even know if I made it up after too many pepperoni and anchovy pizzas while watching The Manchurian Candidate.

I just wondered if anyone else has seen the same thing and if they could speak to its accuracy or not. I'm specifically looking for direct references to the idea that Zarqawi's importance was artificially increased, not random stories telling us how important he was.

He might have been somewhat of a "puppet king". Isn't this the same guy who they released video of him in the desert with Nikes and not being able to shoot his gun. Didn't look too smart or intimidating in that video.

@Killfile

Yup, I heard it too. But, I also can't remember where. I don't eat much pizza and I've ever seen The Manchurian Candidate, so I'm pretty sure the story exists somewhere in the web-o-sphere.

A Google search for "al-zarqawi puppet" turned up no dice. ;)

How often have we seen this before Claus?

You can't kill an ideology by killing a single proponent of it.

I think you are right, unfortunately. They will need to kill them all. All of his brothers, all of his sons, all of his friends and their sons and then the mothers so there can be no more sons and then...

Well, Europe still knows this pain

Were there some that thought he was already dead or is that just Bin Laden?

Ha!

"Okay guys, this gay-marriage thing isn't going so well. The public and the media can see right through it. I think it's time we kill a terrorist."

[Walks into hall of prison cells. Stands before cells containing Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi]

"Okay, lets go with Al. We'll save Binny for '08."

I guess it's an entertaining thought, but unlikely.

..Colin,you would be prudent to took at what happened in California..with the Duksters seat..if the dem`s could not win back his seat...well that aint faring to well for the rest of this cycle either..and as an Independent your sides message aint much if any better than the right so put a sock in it... you aint helping your sides cause if you want to have any chance getting my vote...this is great news for Iraq...but it has been said good news is bad news..I`ll let you decipher who is where.....sometimes Rush is right ...!!

Rob, you aren't following the discussion very well. I was merely expanding on Conall's idea in a facetious manner.

..for that I must apologize these muti threads in a thread confuses such a pee brain..

conall cernach

OK. Now he's dead. Now we go to Iran.

All of your responses are so full of hope and glee. A man is dead, not Al-Qaeda, not terrorism, a man. The war is not over. This is not progress, just more propaganda.

Tell me, how do we know for sure that this man is dead. Because Gen. Casey said so? Because it was reported to the AP? Couldn't this just be a distraction form the massacres in Iraq?

Well that didn't take long did it"? First is the dismissal of the importance of killing the head terrorist in Iraq as not a sign of "progress.

And then the conspiracy theorys start.

No guy he's not dead. He's been sent to Argentina to live with Elvis and Hoffa.

This could very easily be blamed on Iran, and now with the leader of Al-Qaeda of Iraq dead, what's stopping us from militarizing Tehran?

Or Dubuque for that matter.... bring it on Minnesota!

I don't follow your logic - we're moving away from confrontation with Iran so what leads you to believe we would blame anything on them without proof? To destroy our own progress?

Oh jeez... I think I just handed you a soapbox to stand on.

You say we are moving away from confrontation with Iran. What evidence do you have for this? Our president refuses to even speak with their president. Iran has rejected any notion of abandoning its nuclear program.

Think about it. The president's poll numbers suck. He needs to bring those up. The last two times he invaded a country, his numbers rose due to patriotic fever. Does it seem irrational to think that another war would boost his numbers, as it has before? No. What would be, politically, the easiest country to go to war with right now? Iran.

We have troops in Afghanistan to the east as well as those in Iraq to the west (who could now be freed as the head of Al-Qaeda there is dead and the Iraqis are taking over more security) . We have a naval fleet in the Persian Gulf to the south, and two more are reported to be currently headed there. To the north is the Caspian Sea. They are surrounded...

Search for Iran and read the news. There have been some major diplomatic strides recently.

Conall, what you are suggesting is speculation without sufficient factual backup. As far as I am concerned, Iran would be pressured into decentralization regardless of what happens in Iraq - I NVed about it indirectly here.

Assuming for a second that US is actually not doing all this for self-serving reasons, what would constitute progress for you?

OK. Now he's dead. Now we go to Iran.

All his base are belong to us?

But there quite a few other leaders there with him as I understand it.

..possibly..but then someone dropped the dime on him..so,maybe the populace is learning the good guys from the bad...this is not over by a looooooooooong shot..but its a battle that is won..good job guys...now lets press on and squash the rest...

Its a CIVIL WAR. Not a bunch of "bad guys." So, which half of the population should we "squash"?

So, which half of the population should we "squash"?

Let's start with the half that are attacking civilians. Once those guys are gone, we can re-assess.

Now, if we can get a day without a bomb going off in a market place, killing 10 or 20 or 30 or so Iraqi civilians, then I'll be impressed.

Source please.

Source please.

Juan Cole keeps a very good tally on casualties across Iraq daily. I would recommend the entry filed just today, Maliki Names Security Officials, 27 dead in Civil War Violence

Um... so kill the militants? Save anyone willing to bow to US authority (and if they die too its ok, they need to stay under control)... What a fcking joke!

FOR the record, AMA-Z was an enemy combatant, an insurgent. Saddam was a dictator, his sons were a General and a diplomat of a foreign nation (none of those titles mean "terrorist"). Um, what would happen if we did this to say... anywhere else? Its a ludicrous statement to say the leaders of another sovereign nation are indeed terrorists because they employ or pay people who are or become terrorists (if that was the case then Harvard alumni must be terrorists because Theodore J. Kaczynski was a domestic terrorist, who sent mail bombs). Even more so, why not condemn the entire US Army for training the Oklahoma City bomber to make bombs, Timothy McVeigh. This BS of blaming selective targets as terrorists is crap, anyone they label next as a terrorist could be you or me or anyone they want to connect the tiny dots for! ....rant over....

Another thing for the record, there is guerrilla warfare and there is terrorism (they are not synonymous). IEDs coupled with small arms fire (AMA-Z was known for this type of attack, as were the North Vietnamese) is guerrilla warfare against military targets, where as the bombing of public places to kill civilian targets is terrorism. Its a fine line but to call the leadership of a foreign nation terrorists is an insult (how would you like it, Mr. Terrorist President).

Another thing to add, association with terrorism does not make you a terrorist. Please people, just because people drive cars doesn't mean they are the same as a greedy oil company, even though the two are financially linked and do business regularly.

I would recommend the entry filed

The source I also had, which I'm not going to bother looking up since I think mvelinder has it covered was CNN, who amongst all of the "oh good, he's dead" coverage were also showing footage of a vegetable market that had gotten blown up this morning.

Let's start with the half that are attacking civilians.

Unfortunately, some of them are us.

Vannevar, sources - when does US attack (read: target) civillians?

nikitab: I assume your point is that the US does not have a policy of attacking civilians. Nonetheless, civilians are being attacked and killed by Americans, so the statement that 'some of those attacking civilians are us (Americans)' stands.

In the context of this conversation, attack also implies intent, so no, it doesn't stand because US troops do not target civillians and thus do not attack them. Because if we follow your reasoning, then we could just as well claim that cars in the US "attack" people because there are accidents and people die.

I don't think anybody has any illusions about the pain of war, but if you are interested in constructive discussions, vannevar, you need to be able to stay within reason to maintain rapport with others on NV. Otherwise you'll simply be dismissed by the crowd.

The conversation I'm participating was begun by Vulgrin, and the particular statement I was responding to was a broad statement that we should target 'the half [of the Iraqi population] that is attacking civilians.' I pointed out that some of those attacking civilians are Americans. I don't believe that 'attack' in this context requires government intent, only intent on the part of the troops doing the killing.

It's not at all clear yet that the attack on the civilians in Haditha was inadvertent; some speculate that the troops involved lost control under stress. Certainly some of the victims were deliberately shot; whether or not the troops doing the shooting had a reasonable belief that they were enemy combatants remains to be seen.

Nonetheless, let's assume for the sake of argument that all the civilian deaths thus far have been inadvertent. You would have to concede, given our experience so far, that civilian casualties are a foreseeable consequence of our operations in Iraq. While I agree that intending to kill civilians is worse than simply acting in reckless disregard as to whether they are killed, it doesn't make the latter morally acceptable. Nor does it change the fact that civilians were 'attacked', regardless of whether the attack was a mistake. Pat Tillman was attacked and killed by his own troops in a tragic case of mistaken identity; that the attack was in error does not change the result.

First of all, unless there is proof provided, suggesting that US troops in general target civillians is slanderous. There will always be individual isolated criminal cases, but to put forth, without proof, institution-wide accusation is an ugly thing to do considering the sacrifices and the risks that those soldiers take for us (not just US, but the West as a whole).

With regard to morality, to you it seems any civillian death is morally unacceptable. Sadly, if that civillian death doesn't take place, other deaths do, so to me the moral course of action is one that minimizes those deaths. Consequently, unless you can demonstrate that there is an alternate course of action that could be taken to avoid deaths (US and Iraqi), then your point loses meaning as it simpy amounts to death=bad. I agree, it is, but such a statement is not constructive.

Let's start with the half that are attacking civilians.

Unfortunately, some of them are us.

From that quote, since the discussion is about trying to solve a problem, your claim becomes that US soldiers are attacking civillians and so are somehow part of the problem that we need to solve. And that is what we disagree about.

It is quite possible that you did not think about it this way, saw the statement about civillians being attacked, and shot from the hip failing to realize that the issue is not "who is hurting the civillians?" but "who do we need to get rid of to solve the problem?" If that is the case, then you can acknowledge a mistake on your part and we'll all move on. If it's not, then you need to show why my interpretation of your statement is incorrect OR why the statement is actually correct.

Which will it be?

Begging the question: you assume throughout that the hostilities in Iraq have some sort of positive value to the United Sates/the West, and that civilian casualties are an unfortunate but bearable consequence of that value. (Note: you are not the one required to bear that consequence, something which would tend to place your estimate of its value in question.)

the moral course of action is one that minimizes those deaths

Thus the moral course of action would have been to leave Saddam in power in Iraq. Now the question is, are we making things in Iraq better or worse by our presence? Incidents like Haditha argue that we aren't. The death squads wearing official uniforms argue that we aren't. The constant bombings argue that we aren't. The fact that reporters are unable to travel at large in Iraq, this long after "Mission Accomplished" argues that we aren't.

Those who favor remaining claim that Iraq would dissolve into sectarian violence if we were to leave. Unfortunately for that argument, our presence doesn't seem to be preventing sectarian violence.

Would the situation in Iraq improve if we left? That's impossible to know. What is possible to know is that our presence has made it worse, and hasn't shown any evidence of improving it to date. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Here we are in a situation where we've badly injured the citizens of a country, and we're being told to stay the course.

the sacrifices and the risks that those soldiers take for us (not just US, but the West as a whole).

What?!?! Nikitab, you have not served in the military have you? The first thing you do when you enlist is swear to uphold and defend the US constitution. Not the British Parliament, or the Crown, or the French Prime Minister... the US constitution. If you want to talk about "institution-wide accusation is an ugly thing", I think you need to look at what your statement is. When I served in the Army (and I still do in the National Guard) I was firm about never working for another nation. I don't have a standing oath to the nations of Europe and you'll be damned to say my actions furthered their agenda and the US's.

You really don't understand the fundamental reasoning behind service, so let's end it there.

Sadly, if that civilian death doesn't take place, other deaths do

What is that supposed to mean anyhow? Are we dealing with fate or circumstance? Casualties happen, it seems America's stomach can handle Iraqi deaths more than it can handle American soldier deaths. Who cares how, its just a matter of whom. American Deaths = Unacceptable, Iraqi Deaths = expected and understandable...wake up call! death is going to happen to anyone in the line of fire. Its just the way war works. There's no Utopian war where people lay down their weapons and go quietly into submission (albeit I don't believe in this war, it would be nice). This war stands for American Imperialism, I will be surprised if we have seen the last of terrorism after this war is over. Back to the thread though, if there is a fight in a bar and you get socked (hit) as a result of the two drunk guys fighting, who is to blame? You for being there, them for fighting, or the bar tender for serving them too much alcohol? It doesn't matter, you got socked one and the drunk guys passed out on the floor. There's little room for you to complain, but you will probably get up and leave the bar, or make sure next time you're in a bar you avoid drunkards who get into a scuffle.

Jimmy - you've just denied existence of socio-economic and political analysis. Leaving Saddam might have minimized short-term losses for US, but would have a huge Iraqi cost and would have terrible long-term consequences for US and the West as a whole.

eSantiago - I didn't mean that US serves the West, but that US troops are in Iraq, which benefits the West. Actually, the way I see it, US troops are putting their lives in danger for all humanity because if ME is stabilized, the French, the British, the Saudi, everybody will be better off. So what I am saying is that everybody should be grateful to US troops regardless of origin. Do we agree?

Sadly, if that civilian death doesn't take place, other deaths do

What is that supposed to mean anyhow?

Just what it says - if US goes into Iraq, people will die because of the war. If US doesn't go into Iraq, people will die from Saddam's repressions, then from terrorism, then from terrorism caused by loss of UN credibility and consequent inability to curb terrorism cultivated in authoritarian regimes.

This is the way I see things.

nikitab wrote:

First of all, unless there is proof provided, suggesting that US troops in general target civillians is slanderous.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but no one has made that accusation. I specifically mentioned Haditha, which clearly involved intentional killing. No one questions that in that case the troops intentionally killed the victims, nor that the victims included civilians. The only question now is whether the troops legitimately believed they were attacking enemy combatants.

The root of the miscommunication is that you have introduced the term 'target' (implying a conscious policy), while the original term was 'attack', which as I have pointed out, includes the possibility of mistaken identity.

My original comment was a response to a post implying that it was easy to discern who the enemy was in Iraq: 'the half that are attacking civilians'. As you yourself concede ('There will always be individual isolated criminal cases...') , taking that approach literally would include some Americans among the enemy. Contrary to your assertion, I did not make a blanket accusation that all American troops attack civilians.

[Y]our claim becomes that US soldiers are attacking civillians and so are somehow part of the problem that we need to solve. And that is what we disagree about.

This is an accurate statement.

Vulgrin: Its a CIVIL WAR. Not a bunch of "bad guys." So, which half of the population should we "squash"? bmvaughn: Let's start with the half that are attacking civilians. Vannevar: Unfortunately, some of them are us.

I trust I didn't misquote. The implication here is clearly that US is attacking civillians.

If these attacks are singular instances, then your statement gives nothing useful to the discussion, as there will always be exceptions to everything. So the implication must have been that they are not singular, which is what I was responding to.

If these attacks are singular instances, then your statement gives nothing useful to the discussion, as there will always be exceptions to everything. So the implication must have been that they are not singular, which is what I was responding to.

There is a great deal of middle ground between 'singular instances' and official policy. And even singular instances are extremely damaging to American interests, so I reject your claim that bringing them up adds nothing to a discussion about civilian deaths in Iraq.

I feel that you had a specific meaning when you used that phrase initially that you are now denying, but I can't prove that and I do see your point.

While there is a great deal of middle ground, the reality is either heavy to one side or the other. And we should be very careful when jumping to conclusions.

@nikitab

US troops are in Iraq, which benefits the West. Actually, the way I see it, US troops are putting their lives in danger for all humanity because if ME is stabilized, the French, the British, the Saudi, everybody will be better off. So what I am saying is that everybody should be grateful to US troops regardless of origin.

That statement assumes that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is working to bring stability to the Middle East. I have not seen any evidence for that. In fact, IMO, the presence of U.S. troops is causing more instability in the Middle East. Perhaps you have some evidence for your assumption that I am not aware of. If so, I'd be delighted if you would share it.

I think this is relevant. US troops provide the security necessary for Iraq to survive as a democracy, so all things mentioned in my post I think can be considered consequences of US stabilizing presence. Beyond that, there is this article, which is more theory than application - I plan to write application thereof directly to the countries in the Middle East to show why and how economic integration, which is what US is pushing for, works as a stabilizing force. Although, this is where I have to admit that I am not yet educated enough to argue that point extensively and still have some reading to do.

It is alot of money being spent to hunt these guys down, but leaving the job undone is what led to Sept. 11. I'd rather they spent a few more and hunt them down then let them regroup and restructure again.

El - See. This is where my internal unrest comes from. I know what it feels like to go all the way. Often it's been to my own destruction and fear of "not seeing things through." So, it's true I have my filter on I would imagine.

However, when I read $50 Billion. $50 Billion. I know that seems immortally eternal and that it's not. But that it's a gesture, in my mind, of the intended continuance. That maybe there *is* no end in sight. So then I cannot help but wonder, "Is there an intended end? If so, where's the line? On what event would there have to occur in order to stop this war?"'

It is alot of money being spent to hunt these guys down, but leaving the job undone is what led to Sept. 11.

I'm glad they didn't leave undone the job of hunting down the guy who was behind Sept. 11. You know, Osama Bin Laden. It would be a shame if that guy was still free while we concentrate on guys who most likely weren't even terrorists before we invaded Iraq.

Funny. That's EXACTLY what I was singing when Tom DeLay got indicted.

...when Jefferson gets his what will you sing then..when in a glass house ,one should not throw rocks...

I'll delight when Jefferson gets his -- and when the other 10 republicans under investigation for corruption charges get theirs too.

..so this perpetual hate machine keeps revolving..Killfile we can do better cant we..or no..?

Hey, I'm an equal opportunity supporter of corrupt politicians getting-theirs. You just seemed very quick to pounce on Vulgrin with allegations of partisanship (thus revealing your own). Send the lot to prison, that's my stance. I've no use for a corrupt politician -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

..Killfile its very obvious who`s what as far as partisanship goes..sounds like you wish to paint me as a Republican..wrong...I`m a card toting Independent.kind`d red head blue heart and a shade of purple throughout so if I tend to sound in your eyes right-mined well that particular issue their view mirrors mine..but dont think I walk lock step with them..I`m a ex- democrat kind`a like Zell Miller,I didn`t leave them they left me...really if you take a step back..there aint much difference..imhho..

...when Jefferson gets his what will you sing then..when in a glass house ,one should not throw rocks...

Put him into prison next to Duke, DeLay, Abramoff, all the rest. He's no better than the rest of them. I'm the one who preaches on NV that we should cast out ALL incumbants, and throw up some term limits asap. But then, you'd actually have to read what I say on NV instead of just casting about for a rock of your own.

their view mirrors mine..but dont think I walk lock step with them

Then you, of all people, should realize that other people might feel the same way as you do before casting me into the partisan pit. For someone who preaches their independence, you are playing the same, sad, old song.

..your`re right... its just the rhetoric is getting so tiresome...

..Irmas right how about a little good news and leave it at that....

Interesting... so you're suggesting that the Bush Administration had information about a big terror win and did not release it before a few major local elections?

That sort of flies in the face of those who say this war is cooked up to keep Bush and Republicans in power.

If this was somehow staged I doubt it would have to do about local elections. They would rather use it to get some of the negative press that has been plaguing the past few weeks with civilians being killed etc.

i completely agree.

..I hope your`re right..the sooner the killing stops and real dialog begins the better..

....I dropped my cayon can borrow someones....plezzze someone just shoot me....need to insert a dean scream here.....

numike, those are ridiculously charged assertions. Give sources, if you wish to be heard.

With nonsensical tripe posted like that who cares to "hear" him or her?

I'm with Rob on this one (but seriously man, lay off the GOP anti-democratic snipes if you want people to see you as an independent) -- I'm as convinced that the Bush administration is out to sell America to the highest bidder as the next despondent progressive, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Bush administration captured Zarqawi some time ago and has been saving him for the opportune moment.

Now I wouldn't be all that shocked if we'd actually bombed the guy several weeks ago and we'd just kept the news locked up. We did the same thing with Jose Padila (spelling?)

Good. I'm glad some of you are thinking. Who but the administration has benefited from terrorism?

The US already had Zarqawi in custody...

It would have been simpler to cook up a fictional bad guy and then "kill" him, no?

Thanks for the chuckle.

It would have been simpler to cook up a fictional bad guy and then "kill" him, no?

So, you've met Zarqawi? If not, how do you know he is (well, was) real? In fact, how do I know that NV is real? Maybe you are all a figment of my overactive imagination, a hundred different versions of my own psychotic self...

There is no spoon.

Who put him on display? In the photos I've seen @ ABCNews, it looked like Iraqis... not Coalition troops.

voiceofreason

I have no problem with neutralizing al-Zarqawi - it had to be done, and I'd have done it myself. But putting his body on display is dishonorable and a violation of the Geneva Convention.

WHAT!

Please tell me what country's Army he fought for? And while your at it give me the date the "country of Al-Zarqawi" signed the Geneva Conventions.

1 - The Geneva conventions don't just protect the signatories.

2 - If Zarqawi isn't a member of a country and thus isn't protected under Geneva then we can't be at war with his country. If we can't be at war with his country then Bush has no business claiming the powers of a War President. Be careful what you wish for.

bmvaughn, the Pentagon briefing featured a big photo of a very dead Zarqawi - see the CNN.com story for photos. Maybe not the same thing as displaying the body itself, but it's still not right.

Full Throttle, you may be right that it's not a violation of the letter of the Geneva Convention, but certainly this violates its spirit - and either way, it's wrong and unbecoming.

What's not right is how aggressively people jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon. As far as I can imagine, if it weren't for the photo, we'd probably have people questioning his identity on NV now.

For the record, I wasn't even aware there was a photo.

What's not right is how aggressively people jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon. As far as I can imagine, if it weren't for the photo, we'd probably have people questioning his identity on NV now.

Photos can easily be faked... I wouldn't go putting all of your marbles in the "they released a photo" basket.

Also, CNN now has a video on their front page of the bombing.

Interactive global warfare! I'm reminded of the eve of the first bombing attacks against Iraq in which you could watch live video streams of the streets of Baghdad, awaiting the planes.

mvelinder, right, but if there was a photo, then there was autopsy, then there is a lot of proof. And it's a lot harder to argue conspiracy theory when things are more open.

Is that what he said? Really? I think that is a bit disingenuous. I think a coalition invasion did a lot more for "turning Iraq into a place where al-Qaida ccould wage war" than al-zarqawi ever did.