http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5058304.stm


- Aboot time. Can't help but think of a Hydra, though.

How suspicious. Bush with his lowest poll numbers ever, failed marriage amendment, deadlock on immigration ... Zarq was doomed to eating breakfast with a couple of Hellfire missiles just any time before November. :rolleyes:

How suspicious. Bush with his lowest poll numbers ever, failed marriage amendment, deadlock on immigration ... Zarq was doomed to eating breakfast with a couple of Hellfire missiles just any time before November. :rolleyes:
Adjust your tin foil hat, you are picking up signals from Zarthon...

I say good riddance, although I'm sure someone will try and step up to take Zarqawi's place, he deserved to die as much as Uday and Qusay.
I also read that the locals helped tell the operatives where Zarqawi was. Maybe the Iraqi people are starting to realize that they can stop this whole thing before it goes spinning out of control.
Now I'm going to make a prediction. The usual suspects on this board will make the standard "This means nothing, we shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Bush is Evil, Cheney is pulling the strings, Rove is Satan, ect." posts.

What wonderful news to wake up to this morning. And I listened to his speech today as well, aside from the usual marble mouth I was anxious to hear what he had to say. I'm glad he didn't gloat about it and I hope that this does land a hard blow to the terrorists there....but my practical side tells me it's just a matter of time before someone else steps up to the plate and takes over. Honestly, this is never ending...even if we get Osama it will never be over.

This won't end the insurgency or the sectarian violence, but it is nonetheless a huge blow to al Queda in Iraq. Not only have they lost a symbolic leader and operational commander, but it's also a demonstration of the new Iraqi government's ability to bring about greater security. Or at least that's how many Iraqis will see it, and at this stage the War on Terror is largely a war of ideas.

And yes, there will be leftists and other anti-war types who will see conspiricies here. Just like the fruit loops who were so sure that President Bush was waiting until November 2004 to kill bin Laden, the cynical Bush-haters will decry this as a calculated political move. It's the only way they can mischaracterize a clear victory as a defeat and still look somewhat reasonable.

Well, somewhat resonable to really, really stupid people.

The second most important terrorist in the world - the man who bin Laden called "al Queda's Prince in Iraq" - is dead. He's dead because of the hard work and patience of US, Iraqi, and Jordanian forces. This is a major, major, major victory in the struggle of Americans and Iraqis to build a stable, strong, and lasting democracy in the Middle East. Anyone who says it is less than that is trying to manipulate your perception of the event. Period.

When I crack my first Friday beer tomorrow, it will be in salute to all of the brave and dilligent people who worked so hard to bring this evil murderous thug to justice. Cheers to them, and to the Iraqi people!


S

About goddamn time. I doubt it hurt as much as he deserved, but I'll take it.

Stop with the "someone will just take his place" bullshit. YES>.> someone will become the new "leader", but no one will "step up" the same way. Killing Zarqawi is like removing Rommel from the German Army. Yes, there is someone that will take over command, but they will not have the instinctive knowledge, ability, or respect (both locally and worldwide) that Zarqawi had. The attacks will continue.. but God willing, with his death less Iraqi's will be afraid to come forward. This is a positive thing, and nothing more.


By the way, this post is not so much directed at any posts above, but already on the news I hear the Bush-haters making this sound like it is not a big deal. This is huge...

By the way Sixee, Akipt was being sarcastic and foretelling of future news aticles from bush-haters.. it will come out that way soon.

Did you just compare him to Rommel?

Christ, you twat.

'He's dead because of the hard work and patience of US, Iraqi, and Jordanian forces. This is a major, major, major victory in the struggle of Americans and Iraqis to build a stable, strong, and lasting democracy in the Middle East.'

- How, on earth, will this contribute to stability in Iraq?

Yes, I am

Rommel was a respected leader that troops followed. He was Hitler's most capable trained military leader, and you can relate that to Zarqawi. Zarqawi earned respect from his leadership, not because he was appointed because he was Bin-laden's friend. Zarqawi operated on his own, and did not heel to Osama like a dog. Kind of reflects on Rommel...

But being British, I can see why you fear Rommel.


As far as how it will help stability? Who knows. That all depends on how the Iraqi people react to this. If they gain confidence, then it will go a long way, but if not.. then it could be minimal. I do know that it gives the troops over there a much needed boost and relief from the negative attacks from the critics over here.

I have a feeling all they did is make him a martyr. :(

A good day for Iraq.. Damn they needed one pretty bad.

Wether or not someone jumps in to take his place is entirely in our control. There now exists a power vacuum in Al-Queda In Iraq that will be filled. Nature will not tolerate a vacuum and neither will power.

What you will most likely see is an end to civilian killing in Iraq and probably a return to focusing attacks on US/British Military personal. Zarqawis aim seemed to be to turn Iraq into a Hobbesian State of Nature, wherein the Chaos he would emerge as the stabilizing power after US left in frustration.
With the architect of that plan dead there will most likely be a return to the mindless jihad, not that either is intelligent by any means.

See? I told you the "Usual Suspects" would start the rhetoric.
Damn I hate being correct.

What you will most likely see is an end to civilian killing in Iraq and probably a return to focusing attacks on US/British Military personal.
I'm not so optimistic, but a decrease in civilian killing (which reached new heights in May) would be welcome. I suspect there will be a major "payback" attack, probably on civilians, a brief period of quietude while Zarqawi's former subordinates jostle for new leadership, then a renewal of bloodshed.

There's an opportunity here, though. To fill the vacuum requires a higher degree of communication among the wannabe successors to Zarqawi's throne. It might give our intel ops more chances to intercept and track down al-Qaeda in the area.

I am going to throw this out there. Let me start by saying I have only speculated on this with a co-worker and am not reporting anything I have heard. We started thinking about what LL has already posted about, and he is correct on what Zarqawi's motives were.. Create civil war and use it to spearhead his movement. But, we started to wonder if this is what lead to his downfall. Lets say for arguement sake, that because of continue raids by coalition forces, that we managed to deplete alot of his primary followers. Those individuals that agree with his tactic of eliminating civilians. In order to restock his supply of followers, he was forced to promote from his recruits who are mostly Iraqi.


Now, many of the Iraqi insurgents are focused on getting the military out of Iraq. They want to attack military targets and not civilian, and since many of their friends and relatives are from this last catagory, you could speculate that this went against their beliefs. Could it be possible that one of his newly appointed leaders turned him in? It would not suprise me considering how carbombs are non-selective on who they kill. It is probable that a brother, sister, child of one of these insurgents were killed, and they wanted a little revenge and also to re-focus the movement.

Once again, this is all speculation.. and just threw it out there for discussion.. or argument.

I fear there will be some retribution attack as well but damn I bet you more so than ever they will all be looking over their shoulder wondering who might snitch or give me today?

I'm happy and proud of the Iraqis because apparently they played a large part in it but I just hope people don't some how think this is the end. Too many times we tend to think that. Bush asked for patience in his address this morning and I hope people listened because it's far from over. And that is not playing the "usual suspects" card that is being practical.

Now, many of the Iraqi insurgents are focused on getting the military out of Iraq. They want to attack military targets and not civilian, and since many of their friends and relatives are from this last catagory, you could speculate that this went against their beliefs. Could it be possible that one of his newly appointed leaders turned him in? It would not suprise me considering how carbombs are non-selective on who they kill. It is probable that a brother, sister, child of one of these insurgents were killed, and they wanted a little revenge and also to re-focus the movement.



It was my understanding that his "force" was mostly foreigners and not Iraqis? I could be wrong though. But you may have a point, still $25mil is allot of camels :D Money will make enemies just as fast as a cause can incite violence. Who knows how it went down exactly, and if we're smart we WON'T know. We shouldn't divulge that b/c then we lose a tactic.

How, on earth, will this contribute to stability in Iraq?

Short-term? It won't. Trust me, I have no illusions that immediate stability will result from al Zarqawi's death.

Al Queda in Iraq is likely to launch an offensive over the next few days and weeks to show that they're still around. And people who share your pessemistic position (whether through simple ignorance or blind hostility to anything that looks good for the Bush Administration) will buy it hook, line, and sinker. Terrorists actually rely on such credulity and short-sightedness to acomplish their ends; "They can never be defeated no matter how hard we fight" is precisely what they want Americans, Iraqis, and the world in general to believe.

That way we surrerder to their mad ideology without firing a shot.

But the truth is that this will bring much greater stability to Iraq in the long-term. First of all, al Queda commanders are not in the habit of disseminating important information to their subordinates; operational and logistical intelligence is generally hoarded by a priviliged few. Along with al Zarqawi dies his knowledge and plans and pathways to funding. He rose to leadership because he was good at implementing al Queda's goals on both a strategic and tactical level, and his death robs them of that strategic and tactical ability.

Secondly, al Zarqawi was an important figurehead. He was a symbol of the terrorist's strength and a figure that filled oridinary Iraqis with fear. To many he must have seemed invincible; killing at will, deftly avoiding coalition forces at almost every turn, and even escaping once when actually caught. Leaders like al Zarqawi become larger than life, and their reputation draws recruits, funds, and other support. And the fear they inspire silences many who would otherwise oppose them.

But not any more. The seemingly untouchable "Prince of al Queda in Iraq" has proven to be quite touchable after all. Some - not all, but some - of the insurgency's support will dry up as a result. And more importantly, ordinary Iraqis will see that they themselves can help rid their nation of terrorists by helping US and Iraqi forces hunt them down.

Which brings me to my final (and by far most important) point: In the minds of Iraqi civilians, al Zarqawi's death is a triumph for their democratically-elected government. Even though US forces fired the missiles that killed him, the significant role played by Iraqi intelligence will be widely advertised. The entire situation makes the new Iraqi govenment look more capable, and people will take them more seriously because of it. As I said earlier, the war at this stage is largely one of ideas ... and the idea sparked here is The Terrorists can be beaten.

No matter what we accomplish, the doom-criers and Bush-haters will never see it as a victory. They will point to the next kidnapping or car bombing and cry "See! See! Everything is just as bad as before! Worse, even!". Some are simply too dull to look deeper than that, but many see it that way because they want to see it that way. Defeat for America means political (and sometimes personal) vindication for them, so defeat is what they desire.

But there are those of us who understand that in asymmetric warfare, victory comes by degrees and inches. There will be no Battle of the Bulge that breaks the enemy's back, only a long, hard slog that eventually (20 or 30 years hense) results in a safer and more democratic world. Al Zarqawi's death is a nice big step down that road, and cause for great celebration among those who genuinely understand the nature of the war we're fighting.


S

'But being British, I can see why you fear Rommel.'

- You do know we thrashed him out of Africa, right? Yeah. Big scary.

'and the idea sparked here is The Terrorists can be beaten.'

- I think it's more one of: 'terrorist leaders can be bombed.'
You have enough precedent of this kind to not assume so twatishly. Saddam, for one. You could say the resistance entered its peak after his capture, and is showing no sign of ebbing. This isn't Roman Britain, and Zargawi isn't your Boudicca.

Good, good and good.

It's a huge blow and he can't be replaced imho. It's not like there's a set of classifieds that folks will line up to fill.

What I'm enjoying atm is him becoming aware that his supposed afterlife isn't one full of 72 virgins for all the children he killed.

It's 72 pissed off Virginians ( founding father types) kicking his ass each and every second for the rest of eternity...

Yes, I borrowed that from some comic, dahell if I can remember which one.

Fandros

Sandor is absolutely spot on, and I can't give him any more Rep!

'But being British, I can see why you fear Rommel.'

- You do know we thrashed him out of Africa, right? Yeah. Big scary.

'and the idea sparked here is The Terrorists can be beaten.'

- I think it's more one of: 'terrorist leaders can be bombed.'
You have enough precedent of this kind to not assume so twatishly. Saddam, for one. You could say the resistance entered its peak after his capture, and is showing no sign of ebbing. This isn't Roman Britain, and Zargawi isn't your Boudicca.


Montgomery was credited with Rommel's Afrika-korp defeat, but it was with the direct help of America and other allies. Make no illusions that the Brits would have won otherwise. And remember, it was the Brits that Rommel man-handled after they defeated Italy.

As for you last paragraph, The "resistance" as you call it has nothing to do with Saddam. They increased attacks to show that they were still fighting, but Saddam's capture did not hurt the "resistance" as he was not leading it from his spiderhole palace. Zarqawi was directly involved.. HUGE difference.

'and the idea sparked here is The Terrorists can be beaten.'

Of course they can be beaten... but victory over terrorism does not "flow from the barrel of a gun"
You can kill Terrorists.. but we do not win the war until the ideology infecting each generation is rejected by all Muslims. The very reason WHY we invaded Iraq, to create a model example of freedom to serve as inspiration for people to see that there is a viable alternative to fanaticism and Jihad, is not taking place, and instead we are fueling and driving more people into the waiting arms of the zealots.

Understand this: WE CANNOT KILL OUR WAY OUT OF THIS PROBLEM.

The death of this man is a good thing. He was a savage and deserved worse than he got. But his death brings us no closer to victory in the war on terror than we were when he was alive. Iraqs problems extend far beyond this man though. And of the threats to the long term stability of the nation, there are far more serious than him.

A rabid dog has been shot down in the streets, but the dangers are still manifest.

WE CANNOT KILL OUR WAY OUT OF THIS PROBLEM
http://www.emeagwali.com/interviews/national-society-of-black-engineers/national-conference-orlando-florida-2002/nuclear-explosion.gif

'and the idea sparked here is The Terrorists can be beaten.'

- I think it's more one of: 'terrorist leaders can be bombed.'
You have enough precedent of this kind to not assume so twatishly. Saddam, for one. You could say the resistance entered its peak after his capture, and is showing no sign of ebbing. This isn't Roman Britain, and Zargawi isn't your Boudicca.

LMAO. Do you really believe that your overuse of the word "twat" is intimidating? Or that obscure (and somewhat inapt*) historical references will build you credibility? How dissapointing.

*Saddam would have been the correct leader to juxtapose with Boudicca; Zarqawi isn't even a native Iraqi. "This isn't Chancellorsville, and Zarqawi isn't your Jackson" would be better, particularly if Zarqwai's location was indeed given up by rival insurgents.


S

Yep. True to form.

'Montgomery was credited with Rommel's Afrika-korp defeat, but it was with the direct help of America and other allies. Make no illusions that the Brits would have won otherwise.'

- And make none yourself if we had not defeated Hitler in the air and stood alone for a year. Good luck having cracked Fortress Europe without Britain.
Credit Monty with more than just the victory, mate. Desert Rats sent Rommel packing, not the 101st Airbourne.

'And remember, it was the Brits that Rommel man-handled after they defeated Italy.'

- Aye, we did defeat Italy. Rommel was still crying like the bitch Monty made him when we came thrashing through the Under-Belly of Europe, up the South of France and flooding through the North. Usual American tosh.

Good bye Zarqawi. Hope Satan ass rapes you 50+ times a day, then turns you over to his not so nice demons for more pain and suffering.

No matter how you slice it this is a good step forward in Iraq gaining it's freedom. Grats to them.

Pwned!

There are two types of victories in war, military and political. Vietnam showed that the two don't neccessarily go hand in hand.

Al Qaeda almost immediately came out with the standard "He is a martyr for the cause God has welcomed him". Remember they will twist this as a reward for Zarqawi's commitment to the fight and if we had missed him with this bomb they would have said that God spared him to continue the fight because God loves what he was doing.

The question is: Can we turn the military victory of this into a political victory?

Oh yeah...and Halo...don't make me bitch slap you with Arnhem and Patton!

- And make none yourself if we had not defeated Hitler in the air and stood alone for a year. Good luck having cracked Fortress Europe without Britain.
Credit Monty with more than just the victory, mate. Desert Rats sent Rommel packing, not the 101st Airbourne.


Haa haa... What sent Rommel packing was lack of supplies and support from Hitler, and 300 Sherman tanks that arrived just before Al-Amien (sp). I agree that while arrogant, Montgomery was a good general, but Rommel was defeated by lack of support and Italian incompetance. Aso for defeating Hitler in the Air? Explain this one. If you mean the Battle of Britian where you needed over 500 foriegn pilots to help you, then yes.. you "won" that battle, or siege if you will. I am not saying the RAF was not a stong force, especially with the spitfire, but the brits did not do it alone.

Aye, we did defeat Italy. Rommel was still crying like the bitch Monty made him when we came thrashing through the Under-Belly of Europe, up the South of France and flooding through the North. Usual American tosh.

I was referring to before the Germans got involved in Africa. Britian fought off Italian attacks and started to push them out.. that is until Rommel arrived. He kicked the shit out of the Brits and if not for supply issues might have been unstoppable. His use of the superior tanks and the 88's were ingenious...

I heard he only dropped 2 items, What the fuck he should of at least had 5 for the raid size required. Why dont the terrorists understand RvR?

Cheney was 3 Boxing clerics...

I heard he only dropped 2 items, What the fuck he should of at least had 5 for the raid size required. Why dont the terrorists understand RvR?

yeah and they were nerfed.

I heard he only dropped 2 items, What the fuck he should of at least had 5 for the raid size required. Why dont the terrorists understand RvR?

I heard they only had + Wis and WAR/SK only items, cloth items as well.

I dunno about Al Qaida their playerbase just seems to be shrinking and they havn't come up with any unique play for years. I'm sure we could find multiple new styles in Iran that could fit everyones play style. And i sure hope there is better loot...

Al-Qaeda's PvP griefers keep most of their loot in the bank. I hear their GL ebays half of it.

The military should sell the rights to the strike video and the body ID to the network that runs "Extreme Makeover".

'Haa haa... What sent Rommel packing was lack of supplies and support from Hitler, and 300 Sherman tanks that arrived just before Al-Amien (sp). I agree that while arrogant, Montgomery was a good general, but Rommel was defeated by lack of support and Italian incompetance. Aso for defeating Hitler in the Air? Explain this one. If you mean the Battle of Britian where you needed over 500 foriegn pilots to help you, then yes.. you "won" that battle, or siege if you will. I am not saying the RAF was not a stong force, especially with the spitfire, but the brits did not do it alone. '


- Yeah and what fucked Napoleon was lack of allies, and what fucked Hannibal was lack of support, and what fucked Alexander was nine fucking wounds and a march through the desert, and what fucked Hitler was a two-front war.

You've strayed from the point, which was that comparing Zargawi to Rommel is fucking insane, that the Desert Rats defeated Rommel, and that Britain, along with Russia and the US, won the war.

Oh, and if you're going to start telling me that the Battle of Britain wasn't a British victory, then you can have your thirty thread argument, by all means. But it's like calling the American War of Independence a French victory. Well I guess it was.

I heard Iran is much like Vex Thal...from what I heard Zarqawi didnt drop a shard like he was supposed to do...so the entry into Iran might get delayed.


On a side note I heard IVM trained EW with a bunch of camels at the euphrates river crossing.

Rover, you heard wrong. It was llamas.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php

All kinds o'llamas...

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked
have been sacked.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/g-titles.htm

A very good day for Iraq and the hopes of Iraq.

One question on a more local matter, when L2 says the killing will go on, he's a "usual suspect". What is President Bush when he says the killing will continue?

I heard he only dropped 2 items, What the fuck he should of at least had 5 for the raid size required.

Correct, however the items were the Defense and Interior Ministers. Hopefully they won't need upgrading for awhile.

Fil

A very good day for Iraq and the hopes of Iraq.

One question on a more local matter, when L2 says the killing will go on, he's a "usual suspect". What is President Bush when he says the killing will continue?



Correct, however the items were the Defense and Interior Ministers. Hopefully they won't need upgrading for awhile.

Fil

As far as L2 goes he is definately a "usual suspect", I suspect that his statements on this board are grounded in education, research and common sense in most cases.

Now as far as Bush goes, hes usually wrong about things so his statement of "the killing will continue" is a statement of hope. We kind of hope he is just as wrong about this as he was about the mission accomplished thing.

This was great news and gave a loud "fuck yea" at 5 this morning when i read the news.

As far as diminishing the civilian killing i dunno seems to me alot of the insurgents are former Baathists and suni's who are carrying out an age old vendetta against Shiites(notice how little violence occurs in kurdish areas)
and Shiites are retaliating back and on and on and soforth.
Iraq was a sectarian civil war waiting to happen all we did was give them the caos needed to get started.
The Baathists are not all that concerned with the US, they know that in the long run our presence and influence will diminish over time. right now they are eliminating future rivals for the power they will one day strive to take back.

Well, its almost election time so lets forget all about budget deficits, spying, corruption, leaks, hurricane disasters, nation building, dead soldiers, obl, etc, etc, etc, because one guy from an organization that did not exist before 9/11 was killed. Lets all vote republican!

I covered a part of this story for CNN today, and gotta say it sounds worse that we got the guy than we did. Now you have tons of guys all competing for the head seat - and all excercising their insurgancy muscle by setting off even more car bombs and stupid shit than before. I can't wait until we get to the point we don't need the middle east anymore, and let it slowly implode on itself.

Well, its almost election time so lets forget all about budget deficits, spying, corruption, leaks, hurricane disasters, nation building, dead soldiers, obl, etc, etc, etc, because one guy from an organization that did not exist before 9/11 was killed. Lets all vote republican!

Ah wrong buck-o...the organization al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) was responsible for the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. So it most certianly did exist before the 9/11..killing that fucker was a win no matter how you spin it.

Al Quaida in Iraq... Don't read too much into my statement. Obviously AQ proper existed long before 9/11.

When I crack my first Friday beer tomorrow, it will be in salute to all of the brave and dilligent people who worked so hard to bring this evil murderous thug to justice. Cheers to them, and to the Iraqi people!



I did not wait for Friday, but have toasted this already. I also raised one to those victims that died terrible deaths at the hands of this freak. Hats off to the hard work of those involved in gathering the intelligence and executing this operation.

Still, I fear that we are headed to a full scale religious war, unless those of a more moderate and rational bent start to step up and denounce those fanatics in their midst. I do think we could have quite an impact on the "wannabe" successors to this freak if we were to start putting a bullet into the forehead of anyone preaching hatred, but it is still more acceptable to have someone committing heinous acts against civilized people than to have a so-called civilized society act in a heinous manner.

Still, I fear that we are headed to a full scale religious war
Sadly i fear your right Byte. welcome to the computerized crusades!
unless those of a more moderate and rational bent start to step up and denounce those fanatics in their midst. I do think we could have quite an impact on the "wannabe" successors to this freak if we were to start putting a bullet into the forehead of anyone preaching hatred,
WOOT, i'll volunteer and I vote we start with Pat Robertson. can someone design a .85 caliber desert eagle for the job please? i fear anything smaller will have to great a margin of error.

Never usually more than two or three pages before someone mentions the crusades. Or the WW2. Well, two out of two I guess.

Am I the only 1 that thinks this guy is crazy?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14770139.htm

The man that sawed off his son's head is killed and his reaction?
"George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."

Can we say agenda?
Incidentally, just because you have a loved one killed there, doesn't make you an expert on the Middle East.

Incidentally, just because you have a loved one killed there, doesn't make you an expert on the Middle East.

Nor does it make one a viable candidate for political office. Such obvious realities, however, do not seem to have stopped this guy from thinking he's both.

Using your own son's murder to advance a political agenda strikes me as particularly creepy. I'm sickeningly reminded of Cindy Sheehan grinning from ear to ear as she was arrested in Washington; some people (and not just those on the anti-war left) are so heavily invested in their dogmas that they're willing to siphon political capital out of their own personal tragidies.

I find that disturbing on such a fundamental level that it defies explanation.


S

OMFG he said Bush sucks!!!

I don't find it strange at all that a tragedy would cause a person to have a political agenda. Its a basic driving force behind change and has been so since the beginning of time.

Now, what would be ok for Mr. Berg to do? Would it be better that he pick up a gun and start shooting muslims? Should he go to Iraq and fight along side US forces to avenge the death of his son? Should he run for office on a pro-war platform? Is that the reaction that would make it ok for him to use the death of his son to advance an agenda?

I would guess you guys are fans of Ann Coulter and the weird ways of the far right who's social control agenda goes beyond what we can watch on TV, listen to on radio and read in books and news papers to what we should do when our husbands, wives or children are killed.

So I guess its A-OK to advance a political agenda on the tragedies of others...just not on your own.

I didn't say anything about political agenda.
I said he's not an expert on the Middle East because his son died there.
If he wants to run for office to affect change, I say go for it.
Who knows? Maybe he'll be successful. I doubt it somehow.
I just thought his reaction to the death of the man that sawed his son's head off was a bit peculiar, that's all....

Do you honestly think these people enjoy the deaths of their children?
Only a person like Ann Coulter, a self obessed bitter matron could so lack any sense of empathy for another persons suffering. Everything has to revolve around her political ideology. Its psycosis is sickening and disturbing in that this is a person who many conservatives consider a rational voice and a guiding force.


As far as Cindy Sheehan, I may not agree with what she says, and think she isnt the brightest of people, but I consider her vantage point. Conservatives seem to need enemies, so they never miss an opportunity to listen to what she says in order to have someone to vilify. You guys fear everything.

Oh sweet bliss, he did suffer...

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.

"We were not aware yesterday that in fact, Zarqawi was alive when U.S. forces arrived on the site," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad, told Fox News.

Iraqi police had arrived on the scene of Wednesday's bomb attack first and put Zarqawi on a stretcher, Caldwell said. The U.S. forces arrived later and identified Zarqawi, who died shortly after.

"He was conscious initially according to the U.S. forces that physically saw him. He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was U.S. military," Caldwell said.

Conservatives seem to need enemies, so they never miss an opportunity to listen to what she says in order to have someone to vilify. Liberals seem to need victims, so they never miss an opportunity to listen to what they say in order to have someone to vilify.

:rolleyes:

Do you honestly think these people enjoy the deaths of their children?
Only a person like Ann Coulter, a self obessed bitter matron could so lack any sense of empathy for another persons suffering. Everything has to revolve around her political ideology. Its psycosis is sickening and disturbing in that this is a person who many conservatives consider a rational voice and a guiding force.


As far as Cindy Sheehan, I may not agree with what she says, and think she isnt the brightest of people, but I consider her vantage point. Conservatives seem to need enemies, so they never miss an opportunity to listen to what she says in order to have someone to vilify. You guys fear everything.

How did Ann Coulter get added into all this?
I'm talking about Nick Burg's Father.
I know Ann said something against the widows of the 9/11 victims, but I'm talking about a reaction from a father whose son's head was SAWED OFF!!!!
Sorry, but we "fearful conservatives" don't always agree with everything that is said by other Conservatives.
You seem to think, by not addressing the point, that Michael Burg's comments were somehow justified.
Even if I thought the Administration was responsible for the death of my son, and not the guy that removed his head, I'd keep my comments to the subject of Zarqawi's death.
I wouldn't use my son's coffin to stand on to tell them why George Bush is a terrorist.
Sorry, but I think there's a line of decency you just don't percieve...

How did Ann Coulter get added into all this?
I'm talking about Nick Burg's Father.
I know Ann said something against the widows of the 9/11 victims, but I'm talking about a reaction from a father whose son's head was SAWED OFF!!!!
Sorry, but we "fearful conservatives" don't always agree with everything that is said by other Conservatives.
You seem to think, by not addressing the point, that Michael Burg's comments were somehow justified.
Even if I thought the Administration was responsible for the death of my son, and not the guy that removed his head, I'd keep my comments to the subject of Zarqawi's death.
I wouldn't use my son's coffin to stand on to tell them why George Bush is a terrorist.
Sorry, but I think there's a line of decency you just don't percieve...

And his reaction was..."killing just causes more killing" a very correct statement. He stated he is not a person that believes that vengence does any good. Why does that make him wrong in the eyes of conservative right wing zealots?

I would think that his "turn the other cheek" philosophy would be more inline with the core christian values that conservatives have used as the driving force of their agenda.

No, his reaction was: "George Bush is a terrorist".
I could agree with the "Killing just causes more killing" statement, if he would have left his political views out of it.
You just don't get it, do you?

Ahh Sixee, you finally admitted that you are in fact a conservative and not the libetarian you tout to be. Thanks for finally admitting it. ;)

OMFG he said Bush sucks!!!

I don't find it strange at all that a tragedy would cause a person to have a political agenda. Its a basic driving force behind change and has been so since the beginning of time.

Now, what would be ok for Mr. Berg to do? Would it be better that he pick up a gun and start shooting muslims? Should he go to Iraq and fight along side US forces to avenge the death of his son? Should he run for office on a pro-war platform? Is that the reaction that would make it ok for him to use the death of his son to advance an agenda?

I would guess you guys are fans of Ann Coulter and the weird ways of the far right who's social control agenda goes beyond what we can watch on TV, listen to on radio and read in books and news papers to what we should do when our husbands, wives or children are killed.

So I guess its A-OK to advance a political agenda on the tragedies of others...just not on your own.

It is one thing to become motivated by personal tragedy; it is quite another to use that tragedy as a political platform. To, in essance, believe that one has suddenly aquired comprehensive insight into this nation and its problems simply because of one's victimhood status.

I sympathize with both Berg and Sheehan for their loss. I genuinely do. But Berg is completely unqualified to be a congressman, and Sheehan has willingly allowed herself to become a laughable dupe for far-left political organizations like moveon.org. I'm sorry, but I consider both of those things to be a disturbing misuse of tragedy. You are welcome to hold a different opinion.

And I despise Ann Coulter. She is what I call a "cartoon conservative"; a mere characterization of conservative values, someone who really is all of the things that liberals and moderates rightly dislike and distrust about their political opponents. Her statement after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, "We should bomb their countries, kill all their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" is absolutely unforgivable ... as is her mischaracterization of the 9/11 windows as "harpies".

Have you ever known someone who you want to grab by the lapels, shake vigorously back and forth, and scream "Stay off my side! Stay off my side!" at? That's how I feel about Ann Coulter.

And just for the record, I quite clearly stated that the right is sometimes just as guilty of capitalizing on tragedy as the left. My distain is equal regardless of who is using the tactic. But those griping about my post seemed to have conveniently glossed over that part.


S

And his reaction was..."killing just causes more killing" a very correct statement. He stated he is not a person that believes that vengence does any good. Why does that make him wrong in the eyes of conservative right wing zealots?
This isn't what Mr. Berg gets wrong. It's sad, but true. Where he's wrong is what he said after this.

Ahh Sixee, you finally admitted that you are in fact a conservative and not the libetarian you tout to be. Thanks for finally admitting it. ;)

I have conservative views on some things. But I like the Libertarian ideas of keeping big government out of my personal life. I'm liberal in other areas.
Don't put a label on me. And it's Libertarian.
:D

I have conservative views on some things. But I like the Libertarian ideas of keeping big government out of my personal life. I'm liberal in other areas.
Don't put a label on me. And it's Libertarian.
:D

I didn't, you did.

Sorry, but we "fearful conservatives" don't always agree with everything that is said by other Conservatives.

The quotes there indicate my distain....
Sorry, thought that was clear....
And I am conservative when it comes to how you should act in public.
This guy using his son's death as a platform to bash the Administration is so not cool.

It is one thing to become motivated by personal tragedy; it is quite another to use that tragedy as a political platform. To, in essance, believe that one has suddenly aquired comprehensive insight into this nation and its problems simply because of one's victimhood status.

How does one aquire the comprehensive insight into this nation that qualifies them to be in Congress, The Senate or as President or Vice-President? Do they need to have been the owner of an insect exterminating business with an agenda to deregulate pesticide application standards? Or played football for a mid-range college and have the savvy to make friends with corporate CEO's to fund your career and pay them back with laws that favor them over the people of a nation? Or grow up the son of a wealthy oilman getting a free pass to a Yale education, a spot in the National guard during a draft, spend summers at a family compound in Maine and have PR people paint you as the self made regular guy?


The loss of a loved one or a personal tragedy is by no means a qualifying factor for leadership, but it is often the catalyst that motivates a qualified leader. After all our current leadership seems so qualified :rolleyes: to lead us...just look at the economy, the world in general and all of the other great things they have done.

And I am conservative when it comes to how you should act in public.
This guy using his son's death as a platform to bash the Administration is so not cool.

Originally Posted by Sixee
I have conservative views on some things. But I like the Libertarian ideas of keeping big government out of my personal life

I am conservative when it comes to how you should act in public.




How should we act in public? So define what keeping big government out of your life means?

Yeah, instead you can join the Navy, get assigned to a swiftboat which wasn't being used as part of the active conflict at the time, get assigned to patrol hot spots in Vietnam, Raze Vietnamese villages with your zippo, fake 3 injuries for Purple Heart consideration, come back and write a book on how you were actually in Cambodia, Throw your ribbons at the White House, undermine the war effort, and the buddies you left behind, and marry an Heir to the Heinz fortune.
That's the leader I want in the White House.

Rover makes a good point.

Sandor, what qualifications make one able to run for office. Many leaders have experienced something in their lives that sparks something to enter public service. Frankly I'd rather have someone who is passionate and new and not someone who was spoon fed and groomed to follow Daddy's footsteps. And let me clarify, I do not necessarily mean this guy... I know nothing of him.

By being Conservative in public, I mean being mindful of others in how you act. It means that when I'm with my Significant Other, I don't act like I'm in the bedroom with them. We are respectful that others may not appriceate how we feel about each other.
I don't want the Government in my personal life in the sense of telling me who, how and why I'm allowed to do things. If I wish not to do things, it should be my decision, not some beaurocrat's.
And before you go down that path, I'm straight.
;)

Libertarians (big L) are conservatives; the terms liberal and conservative actually refer to fiscal views. Social positions are correctly termed libertarian (small l) or authoritarian.

Like me - or P.J. O' Rourke - Six seems to be more or less a libertarian conservative. Pat Robertson is an authoritarian conservative. Howard Dean is a libertarian liberal. Saddam Hussien is an authoritarian liberal (the very worst people the human race has to offer tend to congregate in the far auth-lib corner, though the far auth-con corner can certainly give them a run for their money).

Almost everyone who I've seen post on this board is either libertarian or moderate on the social axis. The difference of opinion tends towards the fiscal and foriegn policy questions.


S

By being Conservative in public, I mean being mindful of others in how you act. It means that when I'm with my Significant Other, I don't act like I'm in the bedroom with them. We are respectful that others may not appriceate how we feel about each other.
I don't want the Government in my personal life in the sense of telling me who, how and why I'm allowed to do things. If I wish not to do things, it should be my decision, not some beaurocrat's.
And before you go down that path, I'm straight.
;)


LOL you contradict yourself with your posting history. I just won't even bother anymore.

Good, Back on track.
Having a personal tragedy does not make you an automatic expert on things.
And using that sympathy to make a political point is distasteful at best.
I would have had far more respect for Berg if he just would have said that "killing begets more killing", rather than bashing the Administration.
Also, if he would have said, "The tradegy in my life has made me decide to run for office, to make a change." I would applaud that too.
It all boils down to if you are constructive in what you do, or destructive...

I wouldn't bother explaining it Sixee. I think the majority of Americans would agree that he had a poor choice of words. "Bush is a terrorist" even though many people dislike him, calling him that will usually get you some pretty strange looks and if you had any creditability..it just went out the door.

Rover makes a good point.

Sandor, what qualifications make one able to run for office. Many leaders have experienced something in their lives that sparks something to enter public service. Frankly I'd rather have someone who is passionate and new and not someone who was spoon fed and groomed to follow Daddy's footsteps. And let me clarify, I do not necessarily mean this guy... I know nothing of him.

I'll answer this in response to Fildien's post, but the reply is aimed at Rover as well. Just going for a twofer in the name of prosaic economy.

What I said - quite clearly - is that victimhood status alone does not qualify one for leadership. And I have researched Michael Berg; before his son's death, he had no obvious desire for public service of any sort. Of course we can't know with absolute certainty (only Berg himself does) but I think that any fairly astute and intelectually honest observer would conclude that his sudden political aspirations are a result of his celebrated status as a victim. It's not that there's something wrong with being motivated by tragedy, but rather that experiencing tragedy in and of itself does not a good leader make.

There are plenty of anti-war politicans out there, and you won't often see me questioning their honesty of intent even though I disagree with them. But in the case of Berg, a candidate has been created soley by virtue of victimhood. I'm actually kind of puzzled that more people don't have a problem with that.

And in any case, not once did I say anything along partisan lines here. I must stress once again that my initial post on this subject very clearly stated that my comments were not aimed solely at the left. But that accusation was made, and now I find myself burdened with the assumption that I'm being partisan.

/sigh

I guess I'm just one of those old-fashioned folks who believe that high-level public servants should be knowledgeable on a variety of important issues, and be motivated by lasting desire to work on behalf of their country. I honestly do not see that in Michael Berg at all. I just see a man who has parlayed tragedy into political clout.

I could be wrong; Berg might actually make a fine leader. But based on the evidence I've seen so far, I very much doubt that will be the case.


S

And I despise Ann Coulter. She is what I call a "cartoon conservative"; a mere characterization of conservative values, someone who really is all of the things that liberals and moderates rightly dislike and distrust about their political opponents. Her statement after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, "We should bomb their countries, kill all their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" is absolutely unforgivable ... as is her mischaracterization of the 9/11 windows as "harpies".


I think you may have meant a caricature, which I know is how I view Madam Coulter; she is exactly what comes to mind whenever I hear someone use the term "wasp". When you want to point out the radicals you show Coulter with the far right, Al Franken with the left, and Sixee with the Liertarians.:eek:

Interesting read: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1201993,00.html?cnn=yes




So it appears that the Sunnis delivered on Zarqawi, and got candidates to their liking. Now the question turns to what happens next. In all likelihood, there will be an immediate upsurge in violence as insurgents allied to Zarqawi attempt to show that their leader's death will be avenged and to demonstrate their ability still to carry out operations. But if Zarqawi's killing is evidence that the Sunnis were ready to abandon him and buy into the political process, this violence should begin to ebb in a matter of weeks as more Sunni militants are brought to heel.

"Zarqawi's death will not end the violence in Iraq," Khalilzad said. "But it is an important step in the right direction." He's right. The Shi'ites will now have to complete their end of the bargain. The next step will be for Maliki and his new security team to rein in the Shi'ite militias that have been the source of so much Sunni anger toward the government in Baghdad. If they don't — or can't — and the sectarian killings continue, the Sunnis will be tempted to unleash their fighters again. And if that happens, there won't be any new deals to be made.

Yeah, instead you can join the Navy, get assigned to a swiftboat which wasn't being used as part of the active conflict at the time, get assigned to patrol hot spots in Vietnam, Raze Vietnamese villages with your zippo, fake 3 injuries for Purple Heart consideration, come back and write a book on how you were actually in Cambodia, Throw your ribbons at the White House, undermine the war effort, and the buddies you left behind, and marry an Heir to the Heinz fortune.
That's the leader I want in the White House.


Swiftboats or their predecessors were actively used in the Vietnam war by US forces from the time we stationed troops in the Mekong Delta.

The burning of Vietnamese villages by using Zippo lighters was one of the things that Kerry found as being immoral by US troops, (but of course the book written by the supposed swift boat veterans claimed things like that never happened) that along with placing enemy heads on stakes and the areas known as free fire zones which basically meant if you were Vietnamese and happened to be in one you were shot on sight. The really bad thing about the free fire zones was it didn't matter if you were adult or child, if you were in one you were shot. Thats what Kerry and the majority of returning vets found to be wrong.

I think its pretty well known that the injuries received by Kerry were legitimate and afforded a purple heart award.

get assigned to patrol hot spots in Vietnam

Oh boy, now there is the real making of a liberal yellow bellied scum...go out and get assigned to combat duty in one of the "hottest" areas in the country....your post confounds me.

were actually in Cambodia

Ummm...you need to know some facts before you post...US troops...in particular Naval and special forces were operating in Cambodian border areas long before we officially went in in 1970.

Throw your ribbons at the White House, undermine the war effort, and the buddies you left behind, and marry an Heir to the Heinz fortune.

I think that Johnson, McNamara, Nixon and Kissinger did more to undermine the war effort than did any veteran who chose to speak the facts on what was going on there.

Of course marrying into the Heinz fortune just negates John Kerry's whole life of being more or less self made...because we all know he planned it all as a child...just like Clinton did when he was a kid.

I have to ask this of you Sixee....you seem to be always certain yet often wrong...is this something that has happened in adulthood or is it from childhood?

I think you may have meant a caricature, which I know is how I view Madam Coulter; she is exactly what comes to mind whenever I hear someone use the term "wasp". When you want to point out the radicals you show Coulter with the far right, Al Franken with the left, and Sixee with the Liertarians.:eek:

Yes; caricature is the appropriate word, but "caricature conservative" is a clumsy term. "Cartoon conservative" probably won't take the 2006 Grammy in alliteration either, but it's got a beat and you can dance to it.

;)

S

Cancerous conservative commentator crank?

Can think of a few other C words...

I think she's just a person that goes out and makes noise to get the buzz started.
And as for the while John Kerry thing, how did you know I was talking about him, if I never mentioned him by name? You knew all the points I brought up, yet none of them were true.
Anyways you can just look at it as "satire", and untie your panties that seem to be in a knot.

I think she's just a person that goes out and makes noise to get the buzz started.
And as for the while John Kerry thing, how did you know I was talking about him, if I never mentioned him by name? You knew all the points I brought up, yet none of them were true.
Anyways you can just look at it as "satire", and untie your panties that seem to be in a knot.

OMG...you got me there..I never would have guessed that your trick post would have caught me so fast...omg...you are teh best at catching liberals when it comes to satire.

Do yourself a favor...pat yourself on the back and at the same time rub your stomach...and don't post again until you can do that for 5 minutes straight.

I really need to ask this about you Sixee...what fucked up thing happened to you that...nevermind...don't wanna know.

+ Rep to whoever can find the last post from Sixee in the last five days that actually shared something original that contributed to the thread it is posted in; and of course, employees and their family members, and Sixee, cannot participate.


(If a +rep hit was given recently that prevents another immediate +rep hit to the winner, it will be noted and given at a later date)

+ Rep to whoever can find the last post from Sixee in the last five days that actually shared something original that contributed to the thread it is posted in; and of course, employees and their family members, and Sixee, cannot participate.


(If a +rep hit was given recently that prevents another immediate +rep hit to the winner, it will be noted and given at a later date)

I would say buy a powerball ticket...the odds are better.

(shhhhhh this is from the liberal media)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13212320/

BERLIN - The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could mark a turning point for al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, according to terrorism analysts and intelligence officials.


"It's a great loss for the these jihadi networks," said Steinberg, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to Gerhard Schroeder when he was chancellor of Germany. "I don't think there is any person in Iraq able to control this network the way Zarqawi did. It's very decentralized. He was the only person in Iraq who could provide the glue.
"By losing Zarqawi, they run the danger of losing Iraq as a battlefield to the nationalist insurgents and others who aren't interested in bin Laden or the global jihad."


I certainly hope that this holds to be true. I'd like to see nothing more than for the AQ to die out in Iraq. :)

'Can think of a few other C words...'

- Cat? Oh, wait, cunt?

PS Sixee has no original posts. No thoughts of his/her own, no ideas or contributions. s/he posts for the sake of posting, for attention because s/he wasn't hugged enough as a child.

It's common enough round here. How else do you score 500 posts after only being registered a few months?

PS Sixee has no original posts. No thoughts of his/her own, no ideas or contributions. s/he posts for the sake of posting, for attention because s/he wasn't hugged enough as a child.

It's common enough round here. How else do you score 500 posts after only being registered a few months?

And I believe we may have a winner.:D

(shhhhhh this is from the liberal media)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13212320/




I certainly hope that this holds to be true. I'd like to see nothing more than for the AQ to die out in Iraq. :)

That would be awesome. But everyone else seems to think that someone else is gonna step up tp the plate. Mousawi seems to be the favorite.