Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
User avatar
Túrin Turambar
Posts: 6153
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead

Post by Túrin Turambar »

Both the Iraqi Prime Minister and General Casey, commander of the US forces in Iraq, have confirmed this. His body has been identified. There's apparently still some doubt, though.

As usual, froms news.com.au:
Air raid kills al-Qaeda's Zarqawi

From AFP and Reuters correspondents in Bagdhad
June 08, 2006


THE al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a US air attack near Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said today.
"Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated," Mr Maliki told a news conference. His statement drew loud applause in the hall where he made the announcement.

"What happened ... is the result of collaboration from people who facilitated the operation conducted by Iraqi police and multinational forces," Mr Maliki said.

"This is a message to those who choose the path of violence to change their direction before it is too late.

"I thank our forces, our police and the multinational forces for what they are doing in pursuing the terrorists."

The Iraqi prime minister was flanked by US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and US General George Casey Jr, the top US commander in Iraq.

General Casey, head of US-led forces in Iraq,said Zarqawi, who had a $US25 million ($33.54 million) bounty on his head, was killed in an air raid, adding his body had been identified.

He also said Zarqawi's group still posed a threat. General Casey told the press conference that Zarqawi and one of his key lieutenants, spiritual advisor Sheikh Abdel Rahman were killed at 6:15 pm yesterday (0015 AEST today) in an air strike on an isolated safe house.

"Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates, who were conducting a meeting approximately 8km north of Baquba, when the air strike was launched."

Baquba is about 60km north of the capital.

"Iraqi police were first on the scene after the air strike, and elements of Multinational Division North, arrived shortly thereafter. Coalition Forces were able to identify al-Zarqawi by fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars."

General Casey said Zarqawi and sl-Qaeda in Iraq "have conducted terrorist activities against the Iraqi people for years in attempts to undermine the Iraqi national government and coalition efforts to rebuild and stabilize Iraq".

He said Zarqawi's death "is a significant blow to Al-Qaeda and another step toward defeating terrorism in Iraq.

"Although the designated leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now dead, the terrorist organization still poses a threat as its members will continue to try to terrorise the Iraqi people and destabilize their government as it moves toward stability and prosperity.

"Iraqi forces, supported by the coalition, will continue to hunt terrorists that threaten the Iraqi people until terrorism is eradicated in Iraq."

In Amman, a senior Jordanian official said "Zarqawi was killed in Baquba ... in a joint operation involving the Jordanian intelligence, the US intelligence and American special operations forces."

"It was a land operation with air cover," he said.

According to the official, Jordanian-born Zarqawi was "presiding over a meeting of his terrorist group" at the time of the operation.

"He died ten minutes after the operation, along with eight to 10 of his partisans," the official added.

He was identified by the agents that carried out the raid who compared recent pictures of Zarqawi with the body," the official said.

ABC news reported that US helicopters hit a house near Baquba, 65km north of Baghdad, at sunset yesterday.

"Zarqawi was apparently injured at first ... The Americans found him. They handed him over to the Iraqis and he later died of his injuries," ABC said.

A Pentagon press officer could not immediately confirm the report.

Also, a senior Zarqawi aide was captured in Iraq with crucial information on Zarqawi and his organisation, an Iraqi government source said.

Reuters said the source did not confirm the report on Iraqi state television that Zarqawi was dead.

link
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46192
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I was just about to start a thread about this, Lord M. Particularly about the issue of the civilians that were killed with him.

Very few reasonable people are going to deny that Al-Zarqawi was a very evil man, and a legitimate target. But does killing him justify killing innocent civilians, including reportedly an woman and a child?

And for those who answer yes to that question, another question. Would Iraqis be justified in killing innocent civilians in order to "get" the Marines responsible for butchering 24 innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

This is not a war where the enemy is on a battlefield separated from civilians. These are terrorists who make civilians targets, and hide behind them.

Yes, it is justified in targeting them wherever they can be killed.

They don't care if their killing of civilians to "get to" marines is justified. The civilians are targets too!
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46192
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

hal, you missed the point of my question. I'm asking philosophically, not practically. Al-Zarqawi was an evil man who killed civilians indiscriminately, which (generally speaking) is the justification for taking him out despite the fact that civilians were killed in the process. Are the Marines who (apparently) indiscrimately killed civilians in Haditha really any less evil?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

philosophically all killing is horrible.

Philosophically all killing is wrong.

The grey area introduced is if that killing will prevent another or many more killings.

It's not terribly complex. IF those marines DID indescriminantly kill civilians that were no danger to anyone, then yes, they are just as bad as anyone else.

Given, however, that they are US marines, and not terrorists, I at least give them a small benefit of the doubt.

There are also mistakes made, and orders given in error. This is a battlefield, and a particularly tricky one. Are all our marines good people? Certainly not. But this is a war where clear targets are rare, and when al-zarqawi is presented as a CLEAR target, I hope they didn't hesitate a moment to send in the planes.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
User avatar
Túrin Turambar
Posts: 6153
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria

Post by Túrin Turambar »

It's a really tough one. The problem is that, had Zarqawi got away, he would have killed many more innocent people. Are we justified in killing five innocents to save fifty?

Given a choice between killing Zarqawi and some civilians and letting him get away, I would probably shoot. It depends, though, on how important he was to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
User avatar
eborr
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:36 am

Post by eborr »

100% V

to adopt that doctrine means you are no better than the terrorists
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

no, it is nothing like the terrorists at all! it is not meant to inspire terror, it is meant to defeat an enemy who is KILLING indescriminantly.

To equate taking out a terrorist leader with terrorism is entirely absurd.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
Holbytla
Posts: 5871
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:31 pm

Post by Holbytla »

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:hal, you missed the point of my question. I'm asking philosophically, not practically. Al-Zarqawi was an evil man who killed civilians indiscriminately, which (generally speaking) is the justification for taking him out despite the fact that civilians were killed in the process. Are the Marines who (apparently) indiscrimately killed civilians in Haditha really any less evil?
Its tough to use superlatives in this case, and in most for that matter.
You end up battling semantics.
What the Marines did in Haditha was wrong, just as terrorism is wrong.

I am not a big fan morally of killing no matter what.
Practically it was the right thing to do, but there are other means of iradicating bad people. It would probably have cost more lives.
User avatar
The Watcher
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
Location: southeastern Wisconsin

Post by The Watcher »

I do not get the claims of "innocent civilians" being killed here. Yes, there are valid reports of one woman and one child being killed withing the house/bunker that was bombed. The five other fatalities seemingly were all men associated with the meeting or whatever that was taking place when the "spiritual consultant" was followed to the residence.

Now, excuse me for being an idiot or something, but if innocents were in this house, I can offer only a few explanations:

They were there agianst their will (women and children hardly mattered in Zarqawi's plans in any case, and neither of those of his followers.)

The woman and child were family members of one of the other men who were helping hide Zarqawi, and, as such, is tragic, but no more so than that of any other family member of a wanted group who is not able or unwilling to flee. Zarqawi was a wanted man very much so by the Iraqis - not just the US.

The whole thing is a cover up ( doubtful, given that even Al Qaida has fessed up that Zarqawi is dead, and the calims for vengeance for his death seem to be non-existent so far....)

If Zarqawi used innocents to shield him from harm in his attempts to hide out for OVER SIX WEEKS and noone within that home attempted to do anything else to leave, Hey, I say the Americnas and Iraqis are NOT at fault. Obviously, the American and Iraqi information about where he was was accurate.

So, why should WE be feeling guilty? Was Zarqawi going to stop his agenda? It is like that old question about the bomb on Hiroshima being justified (well, not even close actually) but if someone refuses to stop in commiting atrocious acts no matter what, and has basically stated that it is a "to the death" struggle, what options remain? Seriously, V, and others, what would YOU have done, if you knew for certain where this man was and only had a window of hours to act on it, also not knowing how well fortified or secured the location was?

I ask out of edification. Yes, maybe what occureedyesterday was a bit of overkill, but, it worked. Two innocents maybe were killed. The rest all seemed to be well aware of who they were shielding and why. That used to be called either terrorist activity or collaberation with the enemy, and Zarqawi WAS an enemy within Iraq. Heck it seems now more and more that the intelligence used to track him came partially from within his own network and the townspeople from where he was killed.
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Two actions can both be wrong without being equivalent actions.

I would like to see the Marines prosecuted, and I believe they will be. But I would not consider the civilian deaths they caused to be equivalent to the civilian deaths caused in the killing of Zarqawi.

However,in considering the justification for killing others along with Zarqawi I also do not accept the logic that it is acceptable to kill five if that saves 50 in the future. I do not accept, for example, the argument that dropping atom bombs on Japan was justified because many more people would have died had the war continued. When Al-Qeyda uses the term "imbalance justified offense" or when we use the term "pre-emptive strike" - both statements can be reduced to an assertion that justification for a course of action can always be found by pointing to a hypothetically worse future. But no one knows what the future will bring. One might as well just say, "My imagination has run out and I can't think what else to do except kill a bunch of people." This is impoverished policy and I don't accept it no matter who is making the claim. If something is an atrocity then it should not be done, and every reasonable alternative should be sought.

What I would ask, in asking about those killed with Zarqawi, was whether reasonable alternatives were sought; whether the death of innocent people was taken into account at all and efforts made to analyze how it might be avoided, or whether they were written off as unimportant. I am concerned about the character of decision makers, because decision makers whose character is corrupt will kill five today and will also kill 50 tomorrow. They will be just a different version of the terrorist they got rid of. If there is evidence that they had principles and tried to follow them, then I am more likely to believe them when they say that these deaths were unavoidable.

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46192
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Well said, Jn!
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Insolent Pup
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am

Post by TheEllipticalDisillusion »

Interesting, Jny.

I wonder just how large the window of opportunity was for getting Zarqawi, though. This man had been hiding, and leading an insurgency, so I suspect that there were few times when it would be feasible to get him. I'm not saying this necessarily justifies this last time, but there is only so much analyzing you can do when trying to nail a target.

Take this loaded hypothetical: if you could have killed Hitler early on with a bomb, but would have to have killed an innocent man standing next to him, would you still not do it?
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46192
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Here is an interview today with Michael Berg, the father of Nicholas Berg, who was allegedly beheaded by Zarqawi:
AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Michael Berg.

MICHAEL BERG: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you first share your reaction to the reported death of Zarqawi?

MICHAEL BERG: Well, I was not relieved, not comforted by his death. In fact, I was saddened by his death, as I am about any human's death. Zarqawi is not the only one that died if 1,000 pounds of bombs were exploded there. Aside from being a human being and having people that love him that will suffer the same pain that my family and I have suffered, Zarqawi is a political figure. He and George Bush have been playing a volleyball game of revenge for too long now, and this is just another spike in that volleyball game, and it will bring about only more death, more sadness, and it will perpetuate this endless cycle of revenge.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Berg, do you believe that Zarqawi beheaded your son personally?

MICHAEL BERG: I don't know, and I say that because I have been lied to so many times by the F.B.I., the State Department, and by George Bush -- we've all been lied to by George Bush -- that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything that I hear they said or that I hear them say. So I really can't -- I really don't know. I don't even know if Zarqawi was alive at that time or whether he's been dead for a long time, whether he ever existed.

AMY GOODMAN: Why are you -- why do you have these questions?

MICHAEL BERG: Again, because I've been lied to so many times. I don't believe anything the American government says. I don't believe anything the F.B.I. says. I don't believe anything the State Department says because I have been lied to by them. The F.B.I. came to my house on March 31 and said, “We have your son.” On May the 11th, they denied they have my son. The State Department sent me an email. I still have the original email saying, “your son is being held in a military prison in Iraq.” A couple days later, they said -- a couple of weeks later they said that that was wrong, that he wasn't held in a military prison. George Bush lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. He lied to us about the Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before he destabilized the country, and he lied to us about Iraqi involvement in 9/11. How can I believe anything that any of these people say? The whole thing can be orchestrated. Maybe many people are Zarqawi, maybe not. I don't believe, nor do I disbelieve.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Berg, if you could go back to that time, because I think for a lot of people, this is perhaps new information. Explain why Nicholas went to Iraq, and then the course of what happened in those months in March and April of exactly what you understood.

MICHAEL BERG: Ok. My son, Nick, went to Iraq. He actually went twice. During his second trip -- and he went there because he believed in the policies of George Bush and because he wanted to help rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq. He worked on communications towers. He went there legally with all the permits that are required to have -- visas, passports, everything that he was required to have.

He left on his second trip on March 14. On March 24, he was arrested by the Iraqi police, just because he was suspicious. He was suspicious because he was an American that was traveling alone, not with a Halliburton or Bechtel convoy, not with the American military, and he was immediately turned over to the American military police in Mosul. These police, namely Lieutenant Colonel William Kern, decided all on his own that, yes, Nick was suspicious, and he would be held for F.B.I. questioning. The F.B.I. questioned him for 13 days. They deprived him of his right to due process. They wouldn't let him call home and tell his parents, “I'm okay; I'm not dead.” They wouldn't let him have a lawyer. They put him in with Iraqi insurgents who wanted to kill him.

Finally, I filed a writ of habeas corpus on April 5, and he was released the next day, but in the meantime, the events that took place in the Abu Ghraib prison had been revealed and had so inflamed the resistance in Iraq, events happening in Fallujah particularly -- and he was in Fallujah when he was abducted later on -- that Nick could never get home again.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg, who was captured and beheaded in Iraq in May of 2004. Now, Michael Berg, you are running for Congress on the Green Party ticket from Delaware. Why?

MICHAEL BERG: That's right. Well, when Nick died, I mean, I have been a war resister since 1965, but when Nick died, I took responsibility for the war. That is, I dedicated every moment of my life to doing whatever I can do to ending the war, and the opportunity to run on the Green Party ticket, the Green Party that is the only party that says, "Bring the troops home now, today" as part of its platform. That opportunity seemed to me to be an extension of my ability to speak out against the war, so that's why I did it.

AMY GOODMAN: Why didn't you choose to run within the Democratic Party in Delaware?

MICHAEL BERG: Because I am not in favor of continuing the war for six months or for unlimited time until certain conditions are met. Every twelve minutes, someone dies. Any plan to end the war in more than twelve minutes from right now is irresponsible and immoral, and I don't think that any of our politicians, Joe Biden here in Delaware, or Murtha, or any of them, have the right to say, 'Well, we can stay in the war this much longer.' No, we can't.

AMY GOODMAN: And how do you respond to those who will say that Iraq will descend into a civil war if U.S. soldiers pull out immediately?

MICHAEL BERG: I would ask them to open their eyes and to look at the civil war and the chaos that's going on now. Look at the massacres of people every day that are going on now. How many people died when those bombs fell that got Zarqawi? How many people have died since Zarqawi was killed? Just in retaliation for his death. We're losing ground in Iraq every day. Baghdad is totally out of our control, except for the Green Zone, and it's going to be far worse if we wait another six months, if we wait another year, if we wait another eight years. You know, eight years at the present rate would be 400,000 deaths, 400,000 more deaths. That would be over half a million all together. Is that what we want? Like we did in Vietnam?

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Berg, what does it mean to run on the Green Party ticket now in Delaware? How do you -- How are you a part of the political process? Do you have to gather signatures now? Are you a part of the debate?

MICHAEL BERG: No. No, I have not been required to gather signatures. The Green Party is on the ballot in the State of Delaware, which means I only had to win the approval of registered Greens in a caucus that we had on May 13. I am the nominee of the Green Party. All I have to do now is gather the votes and win.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg, beheaded in Iraq in May 2004. Michael Berg is now running for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Delaware. He's speaking to us from Wilmington.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 09/1427206
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

yes, he's a political activist, just like cindy sheehan.

One could argue they're using their children's deaths to advance an agenda... and gain sympathy in doing so... but it would probably be insensative to do so.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Or, one could listen to the points he's making and respond accordingly.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Insolent Pup
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am

Post by TheEllipticalDisillusion »

yova, you mean NOT have a kneejerk reaction? The nerve of you. :P
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

I've been reading about the guy since yesterday... sorry to have formed an opinion before this got posted here.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
User avatar
Lidless
Rank with possibilities
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 1:06 am
Location: Gibraltar
Contact:

Post by Lidless »

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:yova, you mean NOT have a kneejerk reaction? The nerve of you. :P
As I understand it, Zarqawi was limited in his ability to do this.
Image
It's about time.
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Everyone who enters politics does so for personal reasons. We can thank God when it's for personal principle and not personal gain.

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Post Reply