Al-Zarqawi killed in airstrike

[REMgirl]

This happened last night; see the headlines at:

http://www.cnn.com/

Good news for us and for the Iraqi people. I hope it will make a difference in the war, but I don't know if it will.

[noonan]

I hope it will make a difference in the war, but I don't know if it will.

Ditto. At the very least though, it's given oil prices a gentle kick in the crotch. (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/08/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes)

[REMgirl]

True, or at least I hope so. I think the American public will cheer for a week or so and then, like when Saddam was captured, things will go back to the way they were. Getting key leaders killed or arrested gives the public a rush, but there is still a huge number of insurgents who are willing to step up and take Al-Zarqawi's place. Immediately after his killing, nineteen people in Baghdad were killed in a car bombing.

What worries me is that I'm not sure how this war can end. How will we know when it's over? Do the insurgents immediately offer up Al-Zarqawi as a martyr and build upon his death by recruiting more soldiers? I think it's still a very precarious situation.

[Duemellon]

(I am unable to get into the other thread about this due to a link that was in there being blocked by my company's firewall)

How Fortiutous Timing!

For those who don't trust the govnt's honesty:

The death of Al-Zarqawi comes a very special convergence of shit for the admin & Iraqis!

The reports about the war have been horrible. The administration is currently trying to find the catalyst for support for them in teh upcoming elections. They've tried dabbing in gay marriage, immigration, & now they've pulled out a serious war goal!

Meanwhile...
The Iraqi govnt has released more than 600 prisoners in an attempt to assuage the insurgency in less than 1 week (actually I think it was 1 day) before the Al-Zark thing. Amazing! Was it a trade? Was it to appease the civilians so they would reveal him?

Meanwhile...
Support for the US in Iraq is waning from the Iraqis' view. After the incident with the army trucks that wrecked into several civlian vehicles killing 5, there were mass protests by the citizenry in protest.

Meanwhile...
The reports about the alleged massacre of 24 civilians as retaliation for a IED killing a soldier came out causing investigations into war crimes & more protests.

Meanwhile...
The further reports of other such alleged incidents involving the massacre of an entire house with no-one considered "fighting age or capacity" (ie: 5yr olds & grandparents) came out as well & was being protested against.

Meanwhile...
The appointment of 2 important cabinet members into the Iraqi govnt that should "complete" the govnt & make it truly legitimate happened today

Well, those who would not be surprised to find out the govnt "timed" this strike to eleviate this stress & bad press could come up with some theories:
The strike was staged & the body was planted
They always knew where he was but were just waiting for the right time
It was a "reward" given them by other powers within Iraq
Or you could just believe it's good timing. I'm not leaning towards one side or the other because either way they've just played their 2nd-best trump card & can't play it again without promoting someone else to the echelon of Al-Zark.

The next two trumps are now OBLaden & pulling out of Iraq.

Maybe they already have OBL up their sleeve because they can announce they're pulling out of Iraq any day they need to & just schedule it for some distance away.

[noonan]

I'm most inclined to agree with #3. It's also kind of a head-scratcher that we can dump 2 500# bombs on his house, yet still identify his face. I geuss he could have heard the whistle and got a running start.

[crank-e]

True, or at least I hope so. I think the American public will cheer for a week or so and then, like when Saddam was captured, things will go back to the way they were.
Actually, I think by the time I hit Submit, I'll be done thinking about this guy forever. A week? Please-we have much more important things to concern ourselves with.

[markalot]

I don't think Al-Zarqawi was important anymore, so someone handed him to us. I guess that's #3.

[monkey neck]

Meanwhile...[/i]
Support for the US in Iraq is waning from the Iraqis' view. After the incident with the army trucks that wrecked into several civlian vehicles killing 5, there were mass protests by the citizenry in protest.


I believe that was in Afghanistan, Due. I could be wrong...

[markalot]

Yea, that was afphghahanatatannan and it's worth noting that we've done a fairly good job there, mostly NATO, and are still hated by the zealots.

[monkey neck]

I'm most inclined to agree with #3. It's also kind of a head-scratcher that we can dump 2 500# bombs on his house, yet still identify his face. I geuss he could have heard the whistle and got a running start.

Exactly what I thought. He seemed in pretty good shape (for a dead guy).

[PeterABnny]

Ditto. At the very least though, it's given oil prices a gentle kick in the crotch. (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/08/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes)


I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. Big Oil loves the money it was making with petrol at $3 a gallon, and nowhere do I believe that it's not going to come up with some piss-ant excuse sometime soon to keep it there. Yeah, Zarqawi's dead, but just today three bombs killed 25 people in Iraq. Life as usual there. And I don't expect things to change even if we snuffed bin Laden. You can kill a man, but you can't kill an ideal, see, and that's what these insurgents are fighting for.

The bottom line for me: the insurgency will continue to kill people, Arab hatred of us will continue to rise, Big Oil will continue to gouge the consumer with perfect immunity, and life will carry on just as it had before. Zarqawi's death is pretty much a non-issue.

[Duemellon]

I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. Big Oil loves the money it was making with petrol at $3 a gallon, and nowhere do I believe that it's not going to come up with some piss-ant excuse sometime soon to keep it there.Example:

Gas at ~$2.40
Iran declares they have begun enriching uranium. Gas jumps to ~2.80 for a few weeks while the world holds it's collective breath.

Gas at ~$2.60
The talks with Iran are going well & for the 1st time in decades years US & Iran have even begun to think of talking. The crisis appears to have a chance to end. As a result, gas goes to $2.90.

[noonan]

I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. Big Oil loves the money it was making with petrol at $3 a gallon, and nowhere do I believe that it's not going to come up with some piss-ant excuse sometime soon to keep it there.

Well, i didn't say that I expected it to stay down and I did qualify with the word "gentle." The fact is there are lots of less corellated events that seem to push oil prices around.

[george]

Well, i didn't say that I expected it to stay down and I did qualify with the word "gentle." The fact is there are lots of less corellated events that seem to push oil prices around.

I went to one of these "Big Think" conferences last week that featured some very eye-opening (to me at least) trends regarding oil. A speaker from the Carnegie Endowment talked about Russia and how it exemplifies how the oil industry is changing. Globally, state-owned oil companies control ~85% of the world's supply. "Big Oil" controls very little by comparison and, according to this speaker, will see their influence continue to fall because the West is losing it's position as the driver of global oil prices.

The oil and gas producing nations are coming to understand that as the developing world continues to grow at a rapid pace those nations are driving the marginal increases in price. This gives a lot of power back to the oil nations, as they aren't looking at just one major customer (the U.S.) as the source for the bulk of their product. As they realize this, they are moving to consolidate control over their oil and gas industry (see Bolivia, Venezuela, Russia) and, more importantly, are placing national interests on a par with financial interests. It will no longer be a matter of simply making money to them, it will also be a matter of exerting global political heft.

Venezuela is the extreme example. Chavez is using oil and the money it generates to try and spread his neo-Bolivarian ideals throughout Central and South America. However, Venezuela has lost about half it's capacity in the last 2-3 years, since Chavez has turned away any new investment in the industry. Chavez can't sustain his plan for very long. Russia is doing many of the same things, although at a much more measured pace.

The bottom line, according to the speaker, is that oil prices will rise as the oil producing nations embrace their increased power and start to be a lot more strategic in how and to whom they partner and sell oil.

Personally, I think that could be a very good thing since it provides the necessary catalyst to get people to start paying attention to how much energy they use.

[Shlep]

I find it interesting how certain events are almost *ALWAYS* touted by addled conspiracy nutters (gaggles and packs of whom roam another board I'm) as being government-staged phoney crap that just seems to mysteriously/fortuitously crop up whenever Bush supposedly needs a PR boost.

Example: recently, a Zogby poll confirmed that Bushs' overall approval ratings have ceased to be in the toilet and have begun dropping towards the septic tank. A bin Laden video message promising new attacks then arrives. Conspiracy theorists claim confidently, as though it was unassailable fact, that the tape is phoney and released to scare people into supporting Bush and his heavy-handed approach to terrorism in general and Al Queda specifically.

But you see, here's the thing: save for a couple small (and brief) spikes along the way, Bushs' approval ratings have been on a pretty much uninterrupted slide south for about 4 years now. Plus, as some of us have noticed, it seems there's a new foreign policy goatscrew by the administration about every other week. Hence, you could tie just about anything you wanted to as being related to Bushs' sagging approval ratings and/or need to divert attention from the fact he's stepped in shit again.

Regarding this part:

(I am unable to get into the other thread about this due to a link that was in there being blocked by my company's firewall)

How Fortiutous Timing!

For those who don't trust the govnt's honesty:

The death of Al-Zarqawi comes a very special convergence of shit for the admin & Iraqis!

The reports about the war have been horrible.

For about two years now, yes.

The administration is currently trying to find the catalyst for support for them in teh upcoming elections.

Technically, the administration has been trying to find a catalyst to support a democratically-elected Iraqi government since before the war began, and trying to win support for it has been a constant and unceasing feature since.

They've tried dabbing in gay marriage...

Actually, the GOP is steadfastly against even dabbling in gay marriage. :D


Meanwhile...
The Iraqi govnt has released more than 600 prisoners in an attempt to assuage the insurgency in less than 1 week (actually I think it was 1 day) before the Al-Zark thing. Amazing! Was it a trade? Was it to appease the civilians so they would reveal him?

Complaints about innocent Iraqi men gettng swept up in coalition dragnets looking for insurgents and jailed unjustifiably have been around for a long time; the Iraqi government was trying to throw a bone to the public in letting some of them go (we still have 10x the number projected to be released locked up).

Meanwhile...
Support for the US in Iraq is waning from the Iraqis' view.

As it has been since about 5 minutes after the footage of Saddams' statue being pulled down was aired.

After the incident with the army trucks that wrecked into several civlian vehicles killing 5, there were mass protests by the citizenry in protest.

Markalot already covered this.

Meanwhile...
The reports about the alleged massacre of 24 civilians as retaliation for a IED killing a soldier came out causing investigations into war crimes & more protests.

Meanwhile...
The further reports of other such alleged incidents involving the massacre of an entire house with no-one considered "fighting age or capacity" (ie: 5yr olds & grandparents) came out as well & was being protested against.


Reports of isolated incident of malfeasance on the part of US troops, and protests against them, are also hardly a new development.

Meanwhile...
The appointment of 2 important cabinet members into the Iraqi govnt that should "complete" the govnt & make it truly legitimate happened today

And this is relevant..*how*?

Well, those who would not be surprised to find out the govnt "timed" this strike to eleviate this stress & bad press could come up with some theories:
The strike was staged & the body was planted

...and the Bush administration, which has demonstrated its mind-boggling level of ineptitude when it comes to subterfuge, pulled this off flawlessly.

They always knew where he was but were just waiting for the right time

"The right time" would have been a year or more ago before the domestic insurgency, which has grown ever more perturbed with the foreign jihadists and their pious bullying to the point where open war has begun breaking out between the home team and the visiting one within the insurgency, decided Zarqawi was a persona non grata and marginalized his political and strategic position within the insurgency enough to render him fairly inconsequential and killing him would have carried far more resonance and political impact.

It was a "reward" given them by other powers within Iraq

Because given the current prevailing sentiments among the Iraqis, they're looking for ways to reward the occupation. Yeah, sure. Gotcha.

Or you could just believe it's good timing. I'm not leaning towards one side or the other because either way they've just played their 2nd-best trump card & can't play it again without promoting someone else to the echelon of Al-Zark.

The next two trumps are now OBLaden & pulling out of Iraq.

Maybe they already have OBL up their sleeve because they can announce they're pulling out of Iraq any day they need to & just schedule it for some distance away.

Riiiight. Bush, who I will again note has been under the shit-hammer as far his popularity is waiting for *just* the perfect, most opportune time to bring in bin Laden. Maybe after he gets run out of office by a torch-bearing mob.

[markalot]

I dunno, maybe read the end of Due's post first?

I think #3 might be right on. Unrelated to any poll numbers someone finally decided to talk and we acted as soon as we could. Mr. Z's support in Iraq was falling almost as fast as Bush's, so while this news, and the bombing video, are great PR I think all in all it's pretty meaningless.

[the happy prole]

If Bush and the GOP are deliberately orchestrating the war to keep their popularity up, they've done a spectacularly crappy job at it.

[Duemellon]

...stuff...I find it interestingthat when someone brings up the possibility, whether or not they believe it, you assume they fully do believe the version of their proposal you least agree with.

I just said "Fortuitous" & for those who don't trust & tossed out some ideas. I guess you could also have read the parts where I was saying "just a possibility" but I don't think u did.

Either way, have fun defending the ludicrousity of propoganda & believing most of what ur govnt says & does. You are the fuel for the machine.

[Duemellon]

If Bush and the GOP are deliberately orchestrating the war to keep their popularity up, they've done a spectacularly crappy job at it.Okay? So what's your point?

Wars are so "romantic" when they're over & we win. They're so godawfully depressing & regretful when we lose. Since they really thought this would be a pushover effort & really only listened to their own voices, such a thing could be possible that they thought a war like this would remain popular.

The finer details? Well, they didn't plan for those, but what if that was really what was going on? What kind've proof would you need? (and you too Shlep)

[Shlep]

I find it interestingthat when someone brings up the possibility, whether or not they believe it, you assume they fully do believe the version of their proposal you least agree with.

Actually, when I first read it, I was somehow under the impression that someone other then you was the author and that the whole missive was copied/pasted from somewhere else. Upon re-reading it, I'm not sure why I thought that. In any case, were I under the impression that I was responding directly to you, I'd have modulated my comments a bit more. My bad.

I just said "Fortuitous" & for those who don't trust & tossed out some ideas. I guess you could also have read the parts where I was saying "just a possibility" but I don't think u did.

Yes, I did.

Either way, have fun defending the ludicrousity of propoganda & believing most of what ur govnt says & does. You are the fuel for the machine.

In a similar vein, I bid you good luck and lots of fun explaining to me how drawing attention to the Bush administrations' perpetually flagging fortunes while declaring them "inept" at political machination amounts to defending them and believing everything they say (or how voting against Bush in an election fuels his "machine").

[yoshomon]

Yea, that was afphghahanatatannan and it's worth noting that we've done a fairly good job there, mostly NATO, and are still hated by the zealots.

Have done a good job doing what?

[Duemellon]

In a similar vein, I bid you good luck and lots of fun explaining to me how drawing attention to the Bush administrations' perpetually flagging fortunes while declaring them "inept" at political machination amounts to defending them and believing everything they say (or how voting against Bush in an election fuels his "machine").Being inept & adept aren't always exclusive because most large scale events are comprised of so many smaller parts.

Bush is adept at appealing to the "common man" but inept at appealing to foreign leaders. He's adept at representing info in a way that suits him but inept at hiding his motives for selectively sharing info. He's adept at taking advice from his staff but inept at determining what is good advice.

U'kno, 'tis a mix.

[markalot]

Have done a good job doing what?

I'm not in the habit of answering rhetorical questions from radicals such as yourself. :D

[twentyshots]

here is the best open ended, vaguely positive comment i can muster......regardless of how it all went down and if ulterior motives played any part, if Al-Zarqawi did everything he is alleged to have done, then good riddance bastard.

[Duemellon]

Yea, that was afphghahanatatannan and it's worth noting that we've done a fairly good job there, mostly NATO, and are still hated by the zealots.Have done a good job doing what?

[the happy prole]

The finer details? Well, they didn't plan for those, but what if that was really what was going on? What kind've proof would you need? (and you too Shlep)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion either way. It just strikes me that every event can either be described as a conspiracy or failed conspiracy. But I'll tell you what. Remember the "alert" challenge from way back? That was when I challenged you to predict within one week of when our alert status would change.

You guessed around July 4. You were wrong. It didn't stop you from claiming a conspiracy the next time it happened, which I think was sometime in December 2003-- a date which in retrospect seems extremely unimportant.

So anyways, public enemy number one is still out there, so I'm gonna issue the Bin Laden challenge. Someone tell me within TWO weeks of when Bin Laden will be killed or captured and why.

Conspiracy theorists-- you've got at least three major things on your side:

1) Bin Laden might very well already be dead, which means Bush can announce it whenever he wants,

2) the upcoming elections make anywhere from July-November a very ripe period

3) Bush needs good PR maybe more than ever-- and he's got nothing to lose if he gets nailed since he can't run again. And if the plot doesn't get revealed until November, the GOP have two years for spin control. And after November, it pretty much doesn't matter.

So if there's a plot, it's probably gonna happen within the next 3-4 months. And as a bonus, there's a high likelihood of just getting lucky with the date.

[Motti]

Is it my impression, or this is about the second or third time Al Qaeda's "second in command" is killed? I'm pretty sure about hearing this some time ago.

[Shlep]

I guess my whole problem with the conspiracy angle is this: why is Bush holding out on capturing/killing these bastards when his failure to deliver on his promise to bring them is a large part of what's ruining his presidency?

Yeah, sure...we got Zarqawi. Specifically, we got him once he was pretty yesterdays' news, a has-been, a third-stringer, a B-list terrorist who'd alienated people above and below him. Nailing him now, while I must confess is quite viscerally satisfying, is scarcely a PR coup for Bush.

To me, it makes aboslutely ZERO sense to seriously speculate that Bush is being selective and/or deliberately holding off apprehending people for the purpose of propping up some cynical mandate to infringe on civil liberties at home and fecklessly project power abroad when it is PRECISELY his inability to, shall we say, close the deal long about 5 years after he vowed that the guys behind 9/11 were gonna pay that has led him beyond being in the doghouse to damn-near getting evicted from it. Jesus, if he was parading these assholes in shackles or screening footage of them getting their shit scattered to the four winds, he'd be unopposable. There wouldn't be a Democrat on the Hill with the perceived moral authority and gravitas to criticize him. He could probably ask for, and receive, special executive emergency powers that'd make the Patriot Act look like a joke.

And while we're at it: where are the WMDs that the cynics said would be "found" whether they were in Iraq or not? That'd be sure as hell easy to pull off. Instead, Bush is left with no real options for re-earning the political and diplomatic capital he squandered pushing for the war.

[markalot]

Have done a good job doing what?

Doing what they set out to do. Overthrow the Taliban and install a provisional government. We went in for the right reasons, did the right thing, and now a multinational force (NATO) is running the show.

[Sushi]

Doing what they set out to do. Overthrow the Taliban and install a provisional government. We went in for the right reasons, did the right thing, and now a multinational force (NATO) is running the show.
All reports say that while life in Afghanistan is certainly better, it's still not a secure situation. Especially not for women, and especially not anywhere outside of Kabul.

I heard a piece on NPR this morning about reaction to al-Zarqawi's death in his native Jordan. Folks in his hometown are "celebrating" him as a martyr, but apparently he is also a polarizing figure--people either love him or hate him. The Jordanian government apparently assisted in on-the-ground intelligence in tracking him down.

On a different note--Has anyone else been disturbed by the death portrait of al-Zarqawi that's been spread all over the news, including on the front page of the local paper (which is the biggest in Ohio) and the front page of CNN.com? I realize the US wants to make it very clear that he's dead--they did the same thing when they took out Hussein's sons (and those pics creeped me out too). This pic seems to be even more widely distributed--there's no escaping it.

The guy was a terrorist, a murderer, and an evil man. That's not in dispute. I just have a problem with showing pictures of dead bodies and close-up images of dead faces on the news. I remember when I was a kid, that was not common. The closest would possibly be the famous pic of the kid kneeling over the body of one of the victims of the Kent State shootings. And even that picture doesn't really show the face of the body on the ground.

For those with little kids--what do you tell a five or six-year-old when she sees a picture of a dead man on the front page of the paper? It creeps me out as an adult. I can only imagine the nightmares it would give a little kid.

[REMgirl]

Oh, amen, Sushi! I just saw a photo op with that same facial photo enlarged and displayed in a gilded frame with complementary matting: a true masterpiece! :rolleyes:

It would seem we can be as bloodthirsty as the killers now in our media. People want all the gory details, I suppose. The days of subtlety in the media are gone.

[Duemellon]

On a different note--Has anyone else been disturbed by the death portrait of al-Zarqawi that's been spread all over the newsNah... doesn't bother me at all...

Regarding previous photos

US officials raised a hue and cry when Arab television broadcast pictures of American soldiers captured and killed by Iraqi forces during the invasion. At the time Rumsfeld asserted the action violated the Geneva Conventions.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended the decision to publish the photos of the Husseins, insisting that there was a “huge difference” between that and the display of soldiers’ bodies for propaganda purposes, which is barred by the Geneva Conventions.

Bert Hall, a professor of military history at the University of Toronto, told the Toronto Star that the publication of the photos might well, in fact, violate the Conventions, which forbid subjecting enemy prisoners or fatalities to humiliation or ridicule. “Having your enemy’s head on a pike is one way of showing you have won and your enemy has lost.... It’s a ritual humiliation,” he commented.

Kamal Samari of Amnesty International asserted, “It is true that there is no explicit prohibition in the laws of war to show pictures of dead bodies. However, the spirit of the rules is that the dignity of everyone—dead or alive, be they Iraqis, United States nationals, British or others—must be respected.”

So, other than violating the Geneva Conventions which we expect other countries to uphold but we never signed & therefore being hypocritcal, I'm fine with it.

[Sushi]

[/indent]
So, other than violating the Geneva Conventions which we expect other countries to uphold but we never signed & therefore being hypocritcal, I'm fine with it.
Actually, I believe the US ratified the first Geneva Convention in 1882 and has ratified the other ones. I believe it was the two additional protocols to the 4th convention that the US has not ratified.

[Duemellon]

Actually, I believe the US ratified the first Geneva Convention in 1882 and has ratified the other ones. I believe it was the two additional protocols to the 4th convention that the US has not ratified.Checked & u are correct. The only things they didn't ratify are the last 2 protocols about civilians during wartime & armed conflicts within a nation.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol2.htm)
The 1st one leads in:
All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.

etc. etc.

The 2nd one we didn't was about the Red Crystal variant instead of just the Red Cross or Red Crescent.

[markalot]

All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities,

There ya go, he ceased to take part in hostilities because he was dead.

I think posting pictures of him is wrong ... but at the same time this is a propoganda war, and that's good propoganda.

[Shlep]

Just need to spell this out to make sure I'm getting it right: I'm to believe that it is rank hypocrisy the violate the Geneva Convention rule about displaying a picture of a dead enemy combatent. Specifically a dead enemy combatent who as a matter of course violated Geneva Convention rules as they apply to stuff like bombing crowded shopping venues and kidnapping civilian humanitarian aid workers, attempting to use video of them tearfully begging for their lives as leverage to extort cooperation from others, and then create still more video of these people having their heads clumsily sawed off with a knife as they die screaming or dispatching them with a bullet in their skull when the attempt fails. That about right?

While I am typically opposed to gratuitous, lurid displays of dead troops on either side of this or any other conflict, I have to wonder: if the President, Secretary of Defense, chairman of the JCS, or other such figure convened a press conference and said "That guy who's been running around staging bombings and videotaping himself sawing peoples' heads off who's been eluding us and frustrating our attempts to nab him the past couple of years...well, he's dead. Take our word on it, m'kay?" Quite frankly, I think if the administration is going to be continually pilloried for not being able to apprehend or kill certain figures, when those figures are apprehended or killed, their detainment or death probably ought to be demonstrated in a way that leaves no doubt. I personally can't imagine that if the White House issued a statement declaring a guy like Zarqawi dead and expected the country and the world to accept this news on nothing more than good faith that it would be hectored by its perennial critics to prove it lest it be assumed that such a declaration "is just another bunch of Bush administration lies."

As for Uday and Qusay: considering the tremendous pall of fear those two held over Iraq, proving that they were gone and definately not coming back, at least not in this lifetime, was absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, does anyone else recall sometime in the year or two that the Bush administration was being roundly criticized by the sort of folks who habitually criticize his every decision for not allowing pictures or video of flag-draped American coffins being loaded on or off military transport planes en route to their final resting place? I can't help but notice that at least on a couple other boards I'm on, the same people who were screaming "Censorship!" and griping about Bush not wanting people to have a clear, in-your-face concept of the cost of the Iraq war are the ones deriding the decision to use photo evidence to prove that a bastard like Zaqawri is dead.

[jd1]

While on the subject of Geneva Conventions something came up the other day... Can anyone think of a time, EVER, when US prisoners were accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions? Looking at the history of US wars since the Conventions came into effect, I just see one war after another where US POW's are mistreated. Sorry to say, it looks to me like the BEST treatment that American prisoners ever got was from the Nazis... And the Nazis routinely subjected American POW's to summary execution, torture, etc.

This is not to say that two wrongs make a right. Don't anyone think I am trying to justify abuses of prisoners by US troops. But the truth is, the Geneva Conventions are a joke. A noble and well-intentioned joke, to be sure, but a joke just the same. I truly wish they weren't, but the best any nation does is pay lip service to them, and most countries don't even bother to do that. The only purpose they have come to serve is as a vehicle for accusation and counter-accusation in the global press.

--JD

[Sushi]

While I am typically opposed to gratuitous, lurid displays of dead I can't help but notice that at least on a couple other boards I'm on, the same people who were screaming "Censorship!" and griping about Bush not wanting people to have a clear, in-your-face concept of the cost of the Iraq war are the ones deriding the decision to use photo evidence to prove that a bastard like Zaqawri is dead.
I just have problems with the photo being on the front page of a major newspaper and a major news website. It's not something I would want a little kid to happen upon (or indeed, anyone with a weak stomach for violence). I realize the US military wants to provide proof that he's dead. My initial discomfort came from the media's proliferation of the image. I would personally rather have the image accompanying an article one click in on a news page or on a secondary page accompanying the continuation of a front-page article.

I do not subscribe to the "if it bleeds, it leads" mantra.

[stakeraiser]

This is great news, but when they have Bin Laden's head on a stick like we were promised years ago, I'll be more impressed

[onest2.0]

I'm glad he's "gone", but I don't think it is going to have much effect on the actual progress of the war and even its effect on morale, polls, etc. will be fleeting. I don't believe Zaqarwi had as much tactical pull as our government and media gave him credit for. I think once we singled him out as #2 bad guy, Al Qaeda ran with it and promoted him to hero status. If he really was the central figure of the insurgency, we would have captured him (or at least attempted to) rather than bombed him to oblivian. He was merely a face to put on the insurgency.

[Angel30]

I just have problems with the photo being on the front page of a major newspaper and a major news website. It's not something I would want a little kid to happen upon (or indeed, anyone with a weak stomach for violence). I realize the US military wants to provide proof that he's dead. My initial discomfort came from the media's proliferation of the image. I would personally rather have the image accompanying an article one click in on a news page or on a secondary page accompanying the continuation of a front-page article.

I do not subscribe to the "if it bleeds, it leads" mantra.
I agree with you Sushi. I am sorry, I find it in poor taste. I don't care who the guy is. There are better angles you can take a picture of someone to prove their death without that particular one.

I think that media has deemed that we have a right to know everything. It's all about sensationalism. I believe that in the 'old' days, like during the world wars, if people were told that Stalin or Hitler or whoever was killed, people believed their leaders. Times have changed... it isn't so much that we don't believe our leaders that these men are dead, it is the fact we feel we are entitled to see the proof.

And besides, why should we believe our leaders when every single on them, Rep or Dem alike, lie?? Not sure where I am going with that last point. :p

[Shlep]

While on the subject of Geneva Conventions something came up the other day... Can anyone think of a time, EVER, when US prisoners were accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions? Looking at the history of US wars since the Conventions came into effect, I just see one war after another where US POW's are mistreated. Sorry to say, it looks to me like the BEST treatment that American prisoners ever got was from the Nazis... And the Nazis routinely subjected American POW's to summary execution, torture, etc.

This is not to say that two wrongs make a right. Don't anyone think I am trying to justify abuses of prisoners by US troops. But the truth is, the Geneva Conventions are a joke. A noble and well-intentioned joke, to be sure, but a joke just the same. I truly wish they weren't, but the best any nation does is pay lip service to them, and most countries don't even bother to do that. The only purpose they have come to serve is as a vehicle for accusation and counter-accusation in the global press.

--JD


Yeah, come to think of it, Americans weren't even treated well when other Americans nabbed them in the Civil War.

There are actually some sound reasons for adhering to such agreements, even if our enemies disregard or wipe their asses with them. Supposing you're a soldier squared off against a vastly superior foe. You're cut off from reinforcements and dangeroulsy short of supplies. Your chances of continually being able to repel them grow slimmer the long things drag on. Now then: suppose you're fighting an enemy with a known penchant for horribly mistreating prisoners or even killing them; upon capture, you know that you can expect to be beaten, tortured, or maybe just stood up and shot dead.

Consider the same scenario, only against the army of a country whose policy for handling POWs was to feed them, give them medical treatment, and spirit them back to the rear for interrogation (of the simple queastion/answer type, no physical coercion) and then incarceration where you can expect to wait out the war in a prison camp where you get three hots and a cot and letters from home delivered by the Red Cross.

In the first scenrio, it would seem the only option left would be to go down fighting to the last and hopefully make them pay dearly for every inch of turf between where they're at and where you're at. In the other, absent the ability to continue fighting or elude capture, the sensible thing to do is wave a white flag.

Leaving surrender as a viable, preferable option can mean that you open the possibility of being able to take an objective while sustaining fewer casualites and expending fewer resources; your own guys benefit directly. The American reputation for POW-handling (the occasional Abu Ghraib-type aberration notwithstanding) has inspired soldiers in previous wars to pack it in instead of fight. During WWI, many young German men were apparently told by their fathers just prior to departing to "be a good soldier, do your duty, and when the fighting starts, drop your rifle and surrender to the first Americanyou see." Italian troops were famously quick about surrendering to US forces; stateside POW camp was like Club Med for Axis soldiers, with small PX-type stores and sporting activities. IN some spots, Italian POWs were granted passes to leave the camp from time to time and mingle in town, so sure were the camp administrators of their return (a trend which led to concerns in some towns about the local women falling for their swarthy, continental charms).

In the Gulf War, Iraqi troops surrendered in droves, often taking care care to avoid their "Arab brothers" (who abused prisoners, they knew) and surrendering to American forces. Hell, we took so many in the first day or so that we couldn't handle them all and just tossed them MREs and told them start walking, which led to semi-comic episodes like the time a quartet of Iraqi soldiers strolled up behind my tank, hit their knees and waved their surrender leaflets...and then got up and ran after us, frantically begging us to capture them when we started moving.

But at least I didn't have them shooting at me, and I wasn't obliged to shoot them.

[Duemellon]

Just need to spell this out to make sure I'm getting it right: I'm to believe that it is rank hypocrisy the violate the Geneva Convention rule about displaying a picture of a dead enemy combatent. Specifically a dead enemy combatent who as a matter of course violated Geneva Convention rules..Yes. It is. Just because I fight a lion doesn't mean I have to use the tactics lions fight with.Take our word on it, m'kay?"There are somethings that a photo still doesn't prove. So there's a guy they "named" Al-Zark & here's a pic of him doing terrorist-things, now he's dead & they show the guy again.

Does me no good. I never knew the guy. I wasn't there to take the photo. Them putting it in the article doesn't add to the argument for me. I have been able to believe a lot of people died in some towers & in the EMT group w/o never seeing their pic.Furthermore, does anyone else recall sometime in the year or two that the Bush administration was being roundly criticized... for not allowing pictures or video of flag-draped American coffins being loaded on or off military transport planes en route to their final resting place?1st: Those coffins were misacredited to the Iraq war.

2ndly: A coffin is NOT as humiliating or ridiculing as the actual death-mask face

3rdish: Using death of soldiers, or withholding the death of soldiers, to justify the continuance of the war is absurdly cyclic. If you say "They kill 10 of ours so we must get revenge" is just making sure they kill more of you.

4thly: I guess you'd be okay if we just stuck his head on a pike, propped it on the back of Titan (Ford) truck & drove it throughout the country on tour until it rotted off the stake?

[PeterABnny]

Here's an interesting article I found on msn.com about that framed image and the war in general. I thought it was spot-on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13212323/

I'm with Shlep - I don't think there's any conspiracy going on with regard to Zarqawi's death and Bush's poll numbers. I think it was just dumb luck and Dumbass & Co. are using it to pimp their chances in November. God knows they need it. The proof I would submit is their going after gay marriage - an obvious pandering ploy, and I'm not even sure it worked. Has anyone seen poll numbers lately? Has Dumbass improved his popularity any with recent events?

[Shlep]

In pre-modern times, when you caught and killed an enemy, you usually cut off his head and hung it in a public place as an example. Not so long ago, even in this country, someone who got hanged stayed there on the gallows for a while before they cut them down as an example.

I believe this was a particularly common method used to convey to people arriving at and leaving seaports of what awaited sailors captured and found guilty on piracy in the 17th to 19th centuries.

As an aside: I do not doubt you're aware of an exhibition which has been put on in a number of cities featuring collections of postcards, mostly from the first three decades of this century mailed out of the South, made out of photographs of lynching. Not seen the actual exhibit, but I have seen several examples of featured cards. Kinda thing that makes you feel physically cold...nice little scene of Americana, all the good townsfolk having a grand day out, maybe even picnicking...and oh, there in the center is a badly-abused, maybe even charred, corpse swinging by its neck.

Aside from saying a lot about racism, I found it chilling to see how pure sadistic evil can be such a bland, ordinary and everyday kind of thing.

[Duemellon]

Aside from saying a lot about racism, I found it chilling to see how pure sadistic evil can be such a bland, ordinary and everyday kind of thing.u don't have to kill or bruise anyone to be sadistic today.

[george]

There is a good article on al-Zarqawi in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Gives loads of background and talks about his poor relationship with bin Laden. Essentially, it paints al Zarqawi as a bloodthirsty sociopath but not a leader. The story was published before his death. It ends with this:

Before leaving Amman, three months before al-Zarqawi’s death, I had asked the high-level Jordanian intelligence official with whom I met whether al-Zarqawi, in his view, was a potential challenger to Osama bin Laden.

“Not at all,” he replied. “Zarqawi had the ambition to become what he has, but whatever happens, even if he becomes the most popular figure in Iraq, he can never go against the symbolism that bin Laden represents. If Zarqawi is captured or killed tomorrow, the Iraqi insurgency will go on. There is no such thing as ‘Zarqawism.’ What Zarqawi is will die with him. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is an ideological thinker. He created the concept of al-Qaeda and all of its offshoots. He feels he’s achieved his goal.” He paused for a moment, then said, “Osama bin Laden is like Karl Marx. Both created an ideology. Marxism still flourished well after Marx’s death. And whether bin Laden is killed, or simply dies of natural causes, al-Qaedaism will survive him.”

The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/zarqawi)