Al-Zarqawi Dead

[GRDadof3]

Trying to eliminate terrorism through violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. If you want to win the war on terror, you need to address the underlying cause. Look at Northern Ireland for an example of this. In our case, terrorism will be an increasing threat until US policy in the Middle East changes. Despite what the Bush administration loves to tell you, they don't hate us because of our freedom, nor do they intend to fight until they wipe out every last American. They hate us for the reason metro stated: we prop up oppressive, dictatorial regimes throughout the region for our own benefit. Stop that, and the problem will solve itself.

I don't believe that. They (being Islamic Fundamentalists Terrorists of any country) would find another reason to hate us. People who TARGET innocent civilians for their cause do not get a chance to provide their "reasoning" for doing what they do. There is no excuse, none.

Even during our own Revolutionary War, we did not target British civilians, or hold them captive and decapitate them to send a message. I don't correlate Al-Zarqawi and Iraq. It was just a convenient and safe place for him to hang out and find sympathizers. He wasn't fighting on Iraq's behalf. He was fighting for anarchy and instability so that they could then rule the roost.

[Gusterfell]

I don't believe that. They (being Islamic Fundamentalists Terrorists of any country) would find another reason to hate us. People who TARGET innocent civilians for their cause do not get a chance to provide their "reasoning" for doing what they do. There is no excuse, none.

The Islamic fundamentalists would still hate us, sure, but they would not enjoy mainstream support of the greater Islamic world. After 9/11 most ordinary Muslims were horrified and expressed sympathy with the US. By launching an unprovoked invasion of an uninvolved country, we proved bin Laden right in the eyes of the Islamic world, and it was only then that fundamentalism became more than a lunatic fringe group within their society.

As for the targeting of civilians, why is it that if the other side kills innocents, it is an inexcusable atrocity, but when the US military shoots women and children in their homes it is shrugged off?

I don't correlate Al-Zarqawi and Iraq. It was just a convenient and safe place for him to hang out and find sympathizers. He wasn't fighting on Iraq's behalf. He was fighting for anarchy and instability so that they could then rule the roost.

Exactly. He could find sympathizers among Iraqis because the US had invaded and occupied their homeland, turning them against us. This is exactly what Bush was warned would happen before the invasion.

[GRDadof3]

As for the targeting of civilians, why is it that if the other side kills innocents, it is an inexcusable atrocity, but when the US military shoots women and children in their homes it is shrugged off?

Our military leaders are sanctioning the killing of innocent (non-combatant) women and children? I say non-combatant because if a 12 year old is pointing an AK-47 at me, they're fair game.

[hood]

You're right. And let's stop going after criminals too because more criminals will just take their place. Yee...haw....

It's not about getting rid of terrorists over there, I don't care about over there, even if there were a billion terrorists over there I don't care. The issue is keeping them out of this country, and thats all we should be concerned about.

I don't believe that. They (being Islamic Fundamentalists Terrorists of any country) would find another reason to hate us. People who TARGET innocent civilians for their cause do not get a chance to provide their "reasoning" for doing what they do. There is no excuse, none.

Even during our own Revolutionary War, we did not target British civilians, or hold them captive and decapitate them to send a message. I don't correlate Al-Zarqawi and Iraq. It was just a convenient and safe place for him to hang out and find sympathizers. He wasn't fighting on Iraq's behalf. He was fighting for anarchy and instability so that they could then rule the roost.

We have killed innocent civilians on purpose many times, look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. i don't neccasarily think its wrong either. Civilian deaths are a part of war, plain and simple. It is extremely hard to win a war without attcking a nations homeland and it's civilians and infastructure.

[PghUSA]

You know when Hitler was killed (because troops were approaching) I don't recall any media reaction from History class like the ones we got. And oh his death DID NOT end the violence or terror in Germany (that lasted until the early 1950's, with our troops pinned down there to keep the peace).

[GRDadof3]

It's not about getting rid of terrorists over there, I don't care about over there, even if there were a billion terrorists over there I don't care. The issue is keeping them out of this country, and thats all we should be concerned about.

I don't think you can build security strong enough or walls tall enough to keep out determined extremists (terrorists). You gotta go after them where they're operating.

[monsoon]

Even during our own Revolutionary War, we did not target British civilians, or hold them captive and decapitate them to send a message. I don't correlate Al-Zarqawi and Iraq. It was just a convenient and safe place for him to hang out and find sympathizers. He wasn't fighting on Iraq's behalf. He was fighting for anarchy and instability so that they could then rule the roost.

Well maybe that is because everyone was a British citizen at the time of the revolutionary war. Apples & Oranges.

However much more recently, we carpet bombed vast areas of vietnam in attempts to put an end to the tactics of the Viet Cong. In those days the enemy was described as radical communists, now it is radical terrorists. Same thing, just a different name.

We are not fighting a new type of war as demonstrated by Vietnam but we are using that as an excuse to do exactly the same thing that we tried in Vietnam and for that matter Cambodia. Despite us not targeting civilians, more than 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq because Bush invaded that country. And of that amount 36,000 have been killed by American bombs. To someone who just had if familiy blown up by an American bomb from the sky, who is the terrorist. GW Bush, or Al-Zarqawi? It's not as clear cut as you guys are trying to make it.

[Gusterfell]

I don't think you can build security strong enough or walls tall enough to keep out determined extremists (terrorists). You gotta go after them where they're operating.

They weren't operating in Iraq until we removed Saddam. He was a secular dictator. The Islamic fundamentalists were his enemies as much as they are ours. By removing him we created a vaccum of power, allowing a formerly secular state to become a hotbed of religious fundamentalism.

If you want to go after terrorists where they're operating, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Its regime had much more connection to those responsible for 9/11 than Iraq's did. Why did we pull troops from Afghanistan to invade Iraq? Open your eyes. Stop buying these lies.

[monsoon]

You know when Hitler was killed (because troops were approaching troops I don't recall any media reaction from History class like the ones we got. And oh his death DID NOT end the violence or terror in Germany (that lasted until the early 1950's, with our troops pinned down there to keep the peace).

I am not exactly sure where you got this information wrong as it is competely incorrect.

First of all Hitler commited suicide he was not killed. Second it was the Soviets that invaded Berlin and surrounded his bunker, not the Americans. Third, there was no violence and terror in Germany of the general German population. Please explain that one further.

On top of that, Germany was immediately partitioned into 4 sectors (American, French, English and Soviet) The Soviets, who had losts millions of citizens immediately subjugated the Germans in what became known as the DDR (German Democratic Republic or East Germany) Everyone in the Soviet sector completly lost their freedoms and were shot if they broke a law. Crime completly disappeared.

The remaining sectors were consolidated into West Germany and the two countries were completly independent from each other. Our troops were not in West Germany to keep the peace. They were there to keep the Soviets (our former allys) from invading the West.

I am completly amazed at the lack of historical knowledge being shown here.

[PghUSA]

^^Never said it was the Americans.

He was killed by his own hand, but we all realize why, if the Allies were not firing on his compound he would have NEVER done the deed, if I swing at a guy and he evades but falls and breaks his arm most juries would say that was MY doing.

But you still haven't answered my confusion, I don't recall any media treatment of Hitlers death at the time like that of Al Zarqawi today.

[monsoon]

^^Never said it was the Americans.

He was killed by his own hand, but we all realize why, if the Allies were not firing on his compound he would have NEVER done the deed, if I swing at a guy and he evades but falls and breaks his arm most juries would say that was MY doing.

But you still haven't answered my confusion, I don't recall any media treatment of Hitlers death at the time like that of Al Zarqawi today.

ahh yeah right. lol

Maybe you somehow completely missed what is was known as VE Day. It was one of the biggest celebrations of the 20th century and it was sparked on news of Hitler's death. I don't know how you could have had more media coverage than that especially considering the primitive communications and media outlets of the day.

[PghUSA]

Metro I'd love for the 2006 media to remind me how big it was, why haven't we seen any frontpages like this one on the death of Zarqawi? Again different time different war, but ANYTHING similiar would be nice.

[hood]

Metro I'd love for the 2006 media to remind me how big it was, why haven't we seen any frontpages like this one on the death of Zarqawi? Again different time different war, but ANYTHING similiar would be nice.

Maybe because the killing of Zarqaqi wasn't the end of a war, much less a World War where millions of people had died. There isn't even the tiniest comparison between the two.

[PghUSA]

As I've mentioned before hood, when this paper was published we were going to "invade" Japan and sacrafice tens of thousands of soliders on both sides, the war in the Pacific was raging and the Warewolves (post war Nazi's) would keep our soliders occupied in post war Germany until at least 1947-48. The occupation of Germany in fact did not end till 1953-54ish. Germany did not exist as we know it today until a good 10 years AFTER that headline was published.

[monsoon]

As I've mentioned before hood, when this paper was published we were going to "invade" Japan and sacrafice tens of thousands of soliders on both sides, the war in the Pacific was raging and the Warewolves (post war Nazi's) would keep our soliders occupied in post war Germany until at least 1947-48. The occupation of Germany in fact did not end till 1953-54ish. Germany did not exist as we know it today until a good 10 years AFTER that headline was published.

That's simply not true. Many soldiers were re-deployed from Germany to continue to fight the war in Japan. The estimates were that 1,000,000 would die if there was an invasion of the Japan home islands and they needed every soldier they could get.

In Germany, the solders were there to bring civil order to a population and country that had been completely destroyed and were surrounded by communists. Stalin made no secret that he might invade West Germany. They had to keep troops in Germany to counter his forces. After the atrocities of the Nazi regime came out, nobody in the population continued to fight for the Nazi cause.

Comparing Al-Zarqawi to Hitler is laughable at best. Al-Zarqawi is an opportunist who has managed to take advantage of the complete collapse of civilization in Iraq caused by Bush's war. He was not responsible for much of the present civil unrest there. The fact that Iraqis and Americans continue to die there is testimate to that. Iraq is decending into civil war and there is nothing the United States can do to stop it unless we go and occupy the country with 600,000 or more troops. And even then we would be hated occupiers. Bush's war is going to go down in history as an even bigger screwup than Vietnam.

[damus]

After the atrocities of the Nazi regime came out, nobody in the population continued to fight for the Nazi cause.

You've got to be kidding. I guess the Germans are just born better than Islamics, considering Al-Zarqawi beheaded innocent people for the sake of Jihad and he was still supported by the Islamofascists.

There were terrorists, or guerillas, in postwar Germany and the occupying armies were simply given more powers than ours are and thus had greater success than we seem to be having. They did not follow the Geneva convention at all. The USA used the firing squad, Britain beheaded suspected Nazis, and Stalin had ordered the male populations of entire villages killed in some instances after a single Russian soldier was killed. They had no regard for civilian lives when it came to squashing those still fighting the Nazi cause. Today, we jail soldiers who are suspected of killing civilians (who in Iraq are sometimes hard to distinguish from enemies according to just about every soldier's account). This is war, and our soldiers have their hands tied.

[monsoon]

You've got to be kidding. I guess the Germans are just born better than Islamics, considering Al-Zarqawi beheaded innocent people for the sake of Jihad and he was still supported by the Islamofascists.

There were terrorists, or guerillas, in postwar Germany and the occupying armies were simply given more powers than ours are and thus had greater success than we seem to be having. They did not follow the Geneva convention at all. The USA used the firing squad, Britain beheaded suspected Nazis, and Stalin had ordered the male populations of entire villages killed in some instances after a single Russian troop was killed. They had no regard for civilian lives when it came to squashing those still fighting the Nazi cause. Today, we jail soldiers who are suspected of killing civilians (who in Iraq are sometimes hard to distinguish from enemies according to just about every soldier's account). This is war, and our soldiers have their hands tied.

I ask you to provide proof that American soldiers were killing Germans by firing squad and that the British were be-heading people in post war Germany. You are the one that have to be kidding if you think our soldiers were given permission to go and roam around Germany acting as death squads for suspected Nazi's. What in the hell is that anyway. Everyone in Germany was a Nazi by the end of the war. LOL

[PghUSA]

That's simply not true. Many soldiers were re-deployed from Germany to continue to fight the war in Japan. The estimates were that 1,000,000 would die if there was an invasion of the Japan home islands and they needed every soldier they could get.

My point exactly, not sure where the "not true" is coming from? The celebrations in the NYT photo were months and months before the end of hostilities with the REAL nation that attacked us, as well as a very enegetic insurgency (though nothing like Iraq) in post-war Germany (then again it was 1,2,3,4,5 years of war already with the members of the "insurgency" in Germany, Iraq is only now coming to that stage).

[Gusterfell]

My point exactly, not sure where the "not true" is coming from? The celebrations in the NYT photo were months and months before the end of hostilities with the REAL nation that attacked us, as well as a very enegetic insurgency (though nothing like Iraq) in post-war Germany (then again it was 1,2,3,4,5 years of war already with the members of the "insurgency" in Germany, Iraq is only now coming to that stage).

There was no insurgency in Nazi Germany. The Nazis were the ruling party, not insurgents. The difference between Hitler and al Zarqawi is that Hitler was the heart and soul of the Nazi party. On his death, the party virtually fell apart overnight. Violence ceased, and the troops that remained were there primarily to prevent a Soviet invasion. Al Zarqawi is a very small, if high profile, part of a much larger insurgency that includes religious extremists, politcal radicals, Iraqi nationalists, and any number of other groups. His death won't stop the insurgency because the majority of insurgents weren't taking their marching orders from him in the first place. His death, while a significant milestone, isn't anywhere near the milestone that Hitler's death was. To compare the two is absurd, and shows a severe lack of historic perspective.

I'm leaving alone the fact that WWII was a legitimate fight for the future of civilization, while the Iraq war is a war of choice meant to enrich the military-corporate complex. Apples and oranges, and to suggest any similarity is a mockery of the huge sacrifices made on all sides sixty years ago.

[monsoon]

My point exactly, not sure where the "not true" is coming from? The celebrations in the NYT photo were months and months before the end of hostilities with the REAL nation that attacked us, as well as a very enegetic insurgency (though nothing like Iraq) in post-war Germany (then again it was 1,2,3,4,5 years of war already with the members of the "insurgency" in Germany, Iraq is only now coming to that stage).

I wrote my answer in English.

You said that soldiers were not being deployed from Germany to Japan because they were pinned down in Germany by an insurgency. That is completely untrue.

Months and Months = 3 months. LOL

WWII for the United states lasted 3 years and 9 months and American troops only fought German troops in Europe for 11 months, certainly not 5 years.

You guys really need to brush up on your history.

The entire comparison of Iraq to WWII is simply pointless anyway. If you want a comparable war look at Vietnam and Cambodia.

[damus]

I ask you to provide proof that American soldiers were killing Germans by firing squad and that the British were be-heading people in post war Germany. You are the one that have to be kidding if you think our soldiers were given permission to go and roam around Germany acting as death squads for suspected Nazi's. What in the hell is that anyway. Everyone in Germany was a Nazi by the end of the war. LOL

Throughout Germany, the Allies were anxious to restore basic services and get local governments up and running again, and one of Weiss's responsibilities was to vet potential officials for past Nazi Party membership. It was an important and time-consuming duty, but he still kept a special eye out for high-value targets who had evaded capture. Many of Hitler's henchmen, particularly from the dreaded SS, were still at large, along with mountains of gold bullion, and if there was to be an uprising, they would surely lead and finance it. Already, sporadic attacks by a group of insurgents ominously known as the Werewolves had prompted standing orders for GIs to execute insurgents by firing squad. This wreaked havoc on the morale of U.S. servicemen, especially since many of the troublemakers were 16- and 17-year-old former Hitler Youth members.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Jewish_investigato..._supplement.htm

I do not have any pictures or videos of these firing squads, and for that very reason lack conclusive evidence that would be needed to prove such an allegation, and for that I apologize.

Months and Months = 3 months. LOL

WWII for the United states lasted 3 years and 9 months and American troops only fought German troops in Europe for 11 months, certainly not 5 years.

You guys really need to brush up on your history.

The entire comparison of Iraq to WWII is simply pointless anyway. If you want a comparable war look at Vietnam and Cambodia.

Perhaps the Iraqi insurgency wouldn't still be around if the US troops didn't have one hand tied behind their backs, like they did in Vietnam.

[monsoon]

I do not have any pictures or videos of these firing squads, and for that very reason lack conclusive evidence that would be needed to prove such an allegation, and for that I apologize.

Perhaps the Iraqi insurgency wouldn't still be around if the US troops didn't have one hand tied behind their backs, like they did in Vietnam.

Your article does not mention beheadings. In any case it isn't true.

http://maximumamerica.com/?cat=407

"Attacks on U.S. troops in the American sector of occupied Germany were so rare that some who were there deny any took place.

[monsoon]

Perhaps the Iraqi insurgency wouldn't still be around if the US troops didn't have one hand tied behind their backs, like they did in Vietnam.

Does it really matter what the reasons beyond the fact that our President has caused the failure? Vietnam was a failure and Iraq is too.

[PghUSA]

^^

It was not nearly as destructive as the insurgency in Iraq but again most of German aggression happened in the 2nd and 3rd years of the war, similiar to Iraq (but in the Iraq case the ONLY agression is the insurgency), but it was a real threat for U.S. servicemen.

For the facts on this just read the good 'ole NY Times from late 1945, the same paper that declared a "Mission Accomplished" like headline that spring:

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp

"Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945

"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945

"Germans Declare Americans Hated," December 3, 1945

Not to mention all the work left to be done in the Pacific theater, but still the NY Times had the courage(?) to celebrate the death of Hitler and the death of the apparatus of Nazi Germany.

[damus]

"Attacks on U.S. troops in the American sector of occupied Germany were so rare that some who were there deny any took place.