Jump to content

So Al-Zarqawi got owned...

kleinluka

By kleinluka
in Political Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

⌐■_■

⌐■_■

Posted
Posted

Oh yeah,

The way he died IS interesting in all ways!

It's not only morbidly interesting but it can also deliver some fine details about what the groundforces then knew about the situation and what mistakes might have been made.

But whatever..

Word is that he has been beaten to death by groundforces. To be more precise: kicked to death. I couldn't care less. That's excactly what he deserved and what he got coming to him. Only downside on it is that he could have been tortured for any usefull information..

It DID btw surprise me that he had any tattoos. For a muslimfundamentalist thats screwed up. According to muslimbelieves, tattoos are a mutilation of whats supposed to be the temple of allah?

:?

Lurker

Lurker

Posted
Posted

Oh yeah,

The way he died IS interesting in all ways!

It's not only morbidly interesting but it can also deliver some fine details about what the groundforces then knew about the situation and what mistakes might have been made.

But whatever..

Word is that he has been beaten to death by groundforces. To be more precise: kicked to death. I couldn't care less. That's excactly what he deserved and what he got coming to him. Only downside on it is that he could have been tortured for any usefull information..

It DID btw surprise me that he had any tattoos. For a muslimfundamentalist thats screwed up. According to muslimbelieves, tattoos are a mutilation of whats supposed to be the temple of allah?

:?

Al-Zarqawi had a history of doing things against Islamic tradition. In his youth he drank excessively and got tattoos. This was before he went to Afghanistan to fight in the Mujahideen.

Apparently, most of the top aides were with him at the time, so whoever is going to be filling in the power void is going to be from the B team.

That doesn't really matter. As far as the Iraqi insurgency, Al-Zarqawi's activities were anything but A-list. His group makes up what is a small percentage of the insurgency, and in my opinion his importance is grossly over-inflated. That being said, his death is obviously welcome news and hopefully the reaction from Iraq is equally as over-inflated, in the "good" direction.

Izuno

Izuno

Posted
Posted

doesn't the US have a policy against asassination or something?

never heard of that policy. i wonder if there is any policy on that one way or another.

anyway, the big question is weather this will actually do anything in Iraq...of which only time will tell. I think the biggest issue is the fundamental quality of life in Iraq which is often a major factor in whether widespread violence or terrorism (or preludes to civil war...) emerges or not.

kuebel

kuebel

Posted
Posted

Suddenly evrybody finds torture ok? I didnt see that in the torture thread.

as long as it's not an Amerikan getting special treatment it's all good *cough cough*

The Postman

The Postman

Posted
Posted

its justice not torture

USA! USA! USA! USA!

doesn't the US have a policy against asassination or something?

never heard of that policy. i wonder if there is any policy on that one way or another.

We have one, it was put into effect in 1978. However in typical fashion we just came up with a new word for assassination (like torture is now "renditioning" :roll: ). We have a terrible record at carrying out assassinations.

The Postman

The Postman

Posted
Posted

That policy only applies to civilian politicians and whatnot.

Any military leader or commander is a valid target during a conflict.

We're not "at war" though. No war was declared by Congress. That in mind they are not military leaders in a military conflict.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...