Al-Zarqawi poll

[Gordon B]

How did you react when you heard today that Al-Zarqawi is dead?

[Gordon B]

I think that Democrats, Republicans, Bush supporters and Bush detractors should all be pleased but I think that some JC'ers feel otherwise.

[Scott Dolan]

*yawn*

Someone will step into his shoes.

[patricia]

In a rare show of support, I agree with Scott.

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, look, sure it's great that he has been taken out. It may even weaken the insurgency temporarily. But it's not going to end it.

He was not a unique case. There's many more where he came from.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yeah, look, sure it's great that he has been taken out. It may even weaken the insurgency temporarily. But it's not going to end it.

He was not a unique case. There's many more where he came from.

All the same, I had a momentary episode of shadenfreude.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

All the same, I had a momentary episode of Schadenfreude.

Now that I stop to think about it, I am surprised that I didn't. I mean, I do care about it because of what he and his henchmen have been putting our troops through.

But, I don't know. Just did nothing for me.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I think that Democrats, Republicans, Bush supporters and Bush detractors should all be pleased but I think that some JC'ers feel otherwise.

I notice first off that Bin Laden has never been caught...he always seems to be just over the next rise.

[Monte Smith]

I was pissed off--that they didn't have video showing the body bouncing. But other than that, fantastic! Zarqawi was the number one jihadist in Iraq and an arguable candidate for most important terrorist in the world, given Osama's retreat in the past five years to the Batcave. Minus Osama and perhaps Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was a bigger figger? The runner-up, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, is already captured. This was good.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

I notice first off that Bin Laden has never been caught...he always seems to be just over the next rise.

Weak.

[Adam Hill]

I voted the first choice because he was evil and I'm pleased he's dead.
However, I don't think it will change anything.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Weak.

Don't start in with me, Scott. You and I have more friendship than that.

[Jon Abbey]

fourth choice: "somewhat happy, but not as happy as if I'd heard that Bush and Cheney had both been burned alive".

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

Don't start in with me, Scott. You and I have more friendship than that.

Of course we do. and no silly political debate between us could change that in anyway as far as I'm concerned.

But it is weak. I've just grown tired of that being brought up everytime someone is caught or killed. I didn't realize that catching these guys had to be done in numerical order.

Nor am I under any illusion that catching bin Laden was supposed to be so easy.

[GoodSpeak]

Rather limited/skewed choices there, Gordon....don't you think?

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Poll

it may reduce bloodshed in Iraq

That would be a stunningly naive expectation.

[Vince Kargatis]

Odd I'm the only multiple voter so far.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

...no silly political debate between us could change that in anyway as far as I'm concerned.

When I post something you disagree with, cool, but to just blatantly and off the top of your head add a comment like, "Weak," it looks and feels like a personal attack and it's insulting. So then, how's about a little diplomacy? "Dennis, that argument is weak, in my opinion, because.....". That squarely places it in the realm of discussion.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I've just grown tired of that being brought up everytime someone is caught or killed.

Then go take a nap. (See what you've taught me, Scott?)

[Tom Storer]

- I can't honestly say I was "pleased," "evil" is not in my vocabulary, and I'm not at all sure it will reduce bloodshed in Iraq.

- I'm not blasé about it, either, and he was important enough that I assume it will make some kind of difference.

- Finally, I was not pissed off--although of course the US will "use it for propaganda purposes" if that's what you want to call it. They eliminated a major enemy, what are they going to do, keep quiet about it?

If it slows down the rate of killing, that would be great.

[Ron Thorne]

Tom pretty much summed up my sentiments.

[Gary Sisco]

I was indifferent. He was a man who was clearly going to die and who clearly wanted and arranged for many others to die. So he got what he'd been asking for all along. Welcome to the virgins. Speaking personally, my attitude is this: another scummer bites the dust. Happens every day.

It won't effect the war in any way, as his alleged army of jihadists is small -- no one credible has numbered them in larger than a few thousand -- minus those that have already been killed or killed themselves in thanatoidal bomb attacks -- and, in the larger scheme of things so far as the war goes, not a major factor. They are outnumbered by several magnitudes by the US and UK's own foreign mercenaries, er, "security firms," any one of which could also be removed from the scene and have little to no effect on the war.

His influence was mainly in the often wild to the point of mad imaginations in DC and hence the American media, which follows their lead like a poodle.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

fourth choice: "somewhat happy, but not as happy as if I'd heard that Bush and Cheney had both been burned alive".

You've consistently expressed much more animus in this forum against the US government than any other, and against religious Christians and Jews than religious Muslims, and against politically active and extreme Christians than politically active and extreme Muslims. Do you really feel that way or are you merely balancing the scales against the more conventional views in this country?

[Gary Sisco]

Gordon, if you reversed the terms, you could say the same for your own expression of personal views.

That's the way it works.

Your own party's crucial powerbase is religious fundamentalists who are also very committed to the use of power and violence to get their ways, including violence against the innocent, who are, after all, merely unfortunate "collateral damage." Getting in the way by living in their towns and neighborhoods and all. The difference, if there is one, is that the ones in your party get to use the self-granted monopoly on "legal" violence enjoyed by the state. And even its legality is highly questionable today and moot in any case given your party's clear and obvious disregard, and in some cases, loathing of constitutional government and a restrained executive.

That party's claim to anything else is as historical as any CPs looking back to pre-October Revolution days. The historical claims might be true but in the present are moot because the party, like any other, is its present, not its past. Things are what they become, not what they began as or formerly were.

[Gary Sisco]

I can say in all seriousness, however, that I find men like Richard Cheney (and others in the admin) to be much more dangerous, and destructive, to the US and to the world than any Zarqawi will ever be.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Do you really feel that way or are you merely balancing the scales against the more conventional views in this country?

what's the difference?

[Gary Sisco]

There are millions of Americans who think the same way Abbey does on this question.

I hear people say shit like that amongst themselves to strangers in checkout lines, every day. Never mind among people they know.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

*yawn*

Someone will step into his shoes.

The only thing I would change to Scott's comment is to put *YAWN* in capital letters.

[Gary Sisco]

There are thousands of him in the world. More every day, many being generated by the US's own determinedly stupid policies. Many more being generated by the simple historical reactionary wave against modernity, which takes many shapes and forms, militant Islamicism being only one.

[patricia]

Interesting that when the military rep was being interviewed just now on CNN/CBC Newsworld, he said that it was known that Al Zarqawi had communication with bin Laden. But, when pressed as to when, he blinked quickly, and said that he had no specifics and would have to "get back to them with that information". You would think that he would expect to be asked about that claim.
Also, nobody is getting the reward. The military rep went on and on about how it was a concerted, long term effort by the American and coalition forces that brought about the success of the operation.
But, it seems to me that considering that Al Zarqawi was turning into a loose cannon. Without local, or inside cooperation, he would never have been found, IMO. So, whoever the inside person is is not tempted by the possibility of receiving a 25 million dollar reward for pointing the military to Zarqawi's location. Interesting.

[Gary Sisco]

And what if he had? Who cares?

There are a whole shitload of CIA agents and US "allies" in Pakistan and elsewhere who've also had "communications" with bin Laden. When he was a useful terrorist. In Pakistan there are hugely popular political and military people who maintain ongoing communications with bin Laden. Why not track them down and kill them as well? Answer: They are still useful.