The only people who are likely to feel sad about Zarqawi's death might be 'Keith Locke' or the Greens and 'Robert Fisk'. The reason that they are unhappy, is that there will be no one to do the killing of children and innocent people in Irag. If there was not any insurgency in Irag after Saddam was toppled, they would have been quiet, since they were opposed to the war. The people of Irag wantes Saddam removed and the Bush & Blair gave them that opportunity. It was the Iragi themselves who fucked it up and not the good samaritans (Bush & Blair). The opportunities were given to them and say, here , take it or you can fucked it up. Zarqawi and others chose to fucked it up. Keith Locke and Robert Fisk then endorsed this fuck up by Zarqawi and his murderous terrorist group. If Zarqawi's elimination brings peace (slowly) to the country, then Locke & Fisk will drop their usual rhime as 'we told you so , not to invade'.
Keith Locke, shut up or put up. If you have a son who fight alongside the US marines, then I think you have some legitimate air and bubble to blah, blah about. Since the Americans & British soldiers are dying on behalf of the wishes of the people of Irag who wants democracy, it is they (US & UK), who decides with what their soldiers can or can't do. If they say they have a job to finish in Irag of what they've started, then it is them who also decides to pull out and not cowards like Fisk & Locke.
I wondered if Locke wants to be in Irag to do charity work instead from airing rubbish from afar. Locke should be in Irag himself and try to find it out of how life is like over there. I doubt he would want to go there.
Hey fellafellafullashita, you have no fucking idea.You brainwashed fool who believes every word as gospel that comes from official US press releases to their heavily censored pro-Isreal and US mainstream media outlets. At least Fisk has spent 30 years in the Middle East and seen things first hand, not like little old fullashita fisi and his blind devotees to capitalism brainwashed by the US fairytale.
So, it's another "mission accomplished". The man immortalised by the Americans as the most dangerous terrorist since the last most dangerous terrorist, is killed--by the Americans. A Jordanian corner-boy who could not even lock and load a machine gun is blown up by the US Air Force--and Messrs Bush and Blair see fit to boast of his demise. To this have our leaders descended. And how short are our memories.
They seek him here, they seek him there. Those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? Is he in hell? That damned elusive Pimpernel?
Sir Percy Blakeney, of course, eluded the revolutionary French. But the Baroness Orczy--unlike Mr Bush--would scarcely have bothered with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian thug whose dubious allegiance to al-Qa'ida turned him in to another "Enemy Number One" for those who believe they are fighting the eternal "war on terror". For so short is our attention span--and Messrs Bush and Blair, of course, rely on this--we have already forgotten that our leaders' only interest in Zarqawi before the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq was to propagate the lie that Osama bin Laden was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein.
Because Zarqawi met Bin Laden in 2002 and then took up residence in a squalid valley in northern Iraq--inside Kurdistan but well outside the control of both the Kurds and Saddam--Messrs Bush and Blair concocted the fable that this "proved" the essential link between the Beast of Baghdad and the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. The date on which this fictitious alliance was proclaimed--since it is far more important, politically and historically, than the date of Zarqawi's death--was February 5, 2003. The location of the lie was the United Nations Security Council and the man who uttered it was the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
What a sigh of relief there must have been in Washington that Zarqawi was dead and not captured. He might have told the truth.
Yesterday, with an inevitability born of the utterly false promise that the bloodbath in Iraq is yielding dividends, we were supposed to believe that the death of Zarqawi was a famous victory. The American press dusted off their favorite phrase: "terrorist mastermind". No one, I suspect, will be able to claim the $25m on his head--unless he was betrayed by his own hooded gunmen--but the American military, stained by the blood of Haditha, received a ritual pat on the back from the Commander-in-Chief. They had got their man, the instigator of civil war, the flame of sectarian hatred, the head chopper who supposedly murdered Nicholas Berg. Maybe he was all these things. Or maybe not. But it will bring the war no nearer to its end, not because of the inevitable Islamist rhetoric about the "thousand Zarqawis" who will take his place, but because individuals no longer control--if they ever did--the inferno of Iraq. Bin Laden's death would not damage al-Qa'ida now that he--like a nuclear scientist who has built an atom bomb--has created it. Zarqawi's demise--and only al-Qa'ida's killers would have listened to him, not the ex-Iraqi army officers who run the real Iraqi insurgency--will not make an iota of difference to the slaughter in Mesopotamia.
Messrs Bush and Blair slyly admitted as much yesterday when they warned that the insurgency would continue. But this raised another question. Will the eventual departure of Bush and Blair provide an opportunity to end this hell/ disaster? Or have the results of their folly also taken on a life of their own, unstoppable by any political change in Washington or London? Already we forget the way in which the same American forces credited with Zarqawi's death had proved only a few weeks ago that he was a bumbling incompetent. The Beast of Ramadi--or Fallujah or Baquba or wherever--had produced a videotape in which he fired a light machine gun while promising victory to Islam. Days later, the Americans showed the rough cuts of the same video--in which Zarqawi could be seen pleading for help from his comrades after a bullet jammed in the breech of the weapon.
In prison in Jordan, back in the days when he was a mafiosi rather than a mahdi, Zarqawi would drape blankets around his bed, curtains that would conceal him from his fellow prisoners, a cave--a Bin Laden cave--from which he would emerge to stroke or strike the men in his cell. Possessive of his wife, he left her with so little money that she had to go out to work in his native Zarqa. When his mother died, Zarqawi sent no condolences.
Like Bin Laden--the man of whom he was both beholden and intensely jealous--he had already transmogrified, undergone that essential transubstantiation of all violent men, from the personal to the immaterial, from the uncertainty of life to the certainty of death. Zarqawi's videotape was an act of extreme vanity that may have led to his death and he may have made it, subconsciously, to be his last message.
That the intelligence services of King Abdullah of Jordan--descendant of the monarch whom Sir Winston Churchill plopped off to the Hashemite throne--might have located Zarqawi's "safe house" in Baquba was a suitably ironic historical act. The man who believed in caliphates had struck at the kingdom--killing 60 innocents in three hotels--and the old colonial world had struck back.
A king's anger will embrace a duke or two. Even an ex-jailbird. Which, in the end, is probably all that Zarqawi was.
Hasn't Fisk's time in the Middle East been spent brown-nosing and being hosted lavishly by the dictators he has defended in the Western press; the dictators who oppress so brutally the people he claims to feel sorry for when the yanks and poms attack those countries and take out the dictators?
I am sure I read something by Mark Steyn about that, though he could have been writing about Fisk's fellow hypocrite, George Galloway.
Reason and rationality from the guest poster at my hero Greenwald's blog -- whose book debuted at no. 11 on the NYT best sellers list today.
Let me start by saying that I do not begrudge those who are celebrating al-Zarqawi's death the right to take solace in it. They believe that his death signals a victory in Iraq and/or against terrorism and that this will help achieve peace in Iraq. That is an admirable thing to be happy about. I hope they are correct.
As a matter of principle, I do not believe the act of killing another human is in itself ever something to be celebrated; I do not celebrate death. If the death of al-Zarqawi means that there will be less death and horror in Iraq as a result, then that is what we are to celebrate. Al-Zarqawi's death is but a means to that end and it is important to draw the distinction between his death and the consequences of that death, otherwise we dehumanize ourselves, we become desensitized to the act of killing, which should always be a solemn affair. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster" and what not.
I do not feel that celebrating is in order so long as death and mayhem in Iraq persists. I believe it calls for cautious optimism, but that there is nothing to celebrate until peace has been brought to the region. And even then it will be a time for reflection upon the cost upon which that peace was bought.
"Hey fellafellafullashita, you have no fucking idea.You brainwashed fool who believes every word as gospel that comes from official US press releases to their heavily censored pro-Isreal and US mainstream media outlets."
Hey, anonymous, I think that you are the one who has no fucking idea. Here is my question? If you think that I am brainwashed, where then that you get your ideas or facts from ? Aha! Don't tell me that it is the same internet Google and the same print media that you get access to as I do. Well , if you know something that it is not available by Google or the daily available media, then you must be an intelligence officer of some government that you only know things that I don't get access to. So, how come that you don't grasp reality. The only hoo ha now aired and loud mouth of the ilk of Fisk & Locke, is because of certain people in Irag who fucked up the opportunity given to them. Put it this way. If there was no insurgency, as perhaps everyone in Irag would say, lets take this opportunity given to us by the good samaritans (Bush & Blair) and start building our own future. If the country is at peace and the reconstructions proceed smoothly , the formations of legal institutions proceed smoothly, then there will be no hoo ha and demand for the interview of the newsmedia of the likes of Fisk & Locke. Their services are not needed since everything goes smoothly. They only get to be interviewed by TV3 John Cambell because there is insurgency. If insurgency never materialised, then Fisk & Locke would have been disappeared from the media.
Now anonymous, if you don't get that, then suggest that you should enrol in a course in Logics 101, then you perhaps finally realised that you have been brainwashed by the likes of Fisk & Locke.
7 comments:
The only people who are likely to feel sad about Zarqawi's death might be 'Keith Locke' or the Greens and 'Robert Fisk'. The reason that they are unhappy, is that there will be no one to do the killing of children and innocent people in Irag. If there was not any insurgency in Irag after Saddam was toppled, they would have been quiet, since they were opposed to the war. The people of Irag wantes Saddam removed and the Bush & Blair gave them that opportunity. It was the Iragi themselves who fucked it up and not the good samaritans (Bush & Blair). The opportunities were given to them and say, here , take it or you can fucked it up. Zarqawi and others chose to fucked it up. Keith Locke and Robert Fisk then endorsed this fuck up by Zarqawi and his murderous terrorist group. If Zarqawi's elimination brings peace (slowly) to the country, then Locke & Fisk will drop their usual rhime as 'we told you so , not to invade'.
Keith Locke, shut up or put up. If you have a son who fight alongside the US marines, then I think you have some legitimate air and bubble to blah, blah about. Since the Americans & British soldiers are dying on behalf of the wishes of the people of Irag who wants democracy, it is they (US & UK), who decides with what their soldiers can or can't do. If they say they have a job to finish in Irag of what they've started, then it is them who also decides to pull out and not cowards like Fisk & Locke.
I wondered if Locke wants to be in Irag to do charity work instead from airing rubbish from afar. Locke should be in Irag himself and try to find it out of how life is like over
there. I doubt he would want to go there.
Good riddance!
Hey fellafellafullashita, you have no fucking idea.You brainwashed fool who believes every word as gospel that comes from official US press releases to their heavily censored pro-Isreal and US mainstream media outlets. At least Fisk has spent 30 years in the Middle East and seen things first hand, not like little old fullashita fisi and his blind devotees to capitalism brainwashed by the US fairytale.
Thanks Anonymous
So, it's another "mission accomplished". The man immortalised by the Americans as the most dangerous terrorist since the last most dangerous terrorist, is killed--by the Americans. A Jordanian corner-boy who could not even lock and load a machine gun is blown up by the US Air Force--and Messrs Bush and Blair see fit to boast of his demise. To this have our leaders descended. And how short are our memories.
They seek him here, they seek him there.
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven? Is he in hell?
That damned elusive Pimpernel?
Sir Percy Blakeney, of course, eluded the revolutionary French. But the Baroness Orczy--unlike Mr Bush--would scarcely have bothered with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian thug whose dubious allegiance to al-Qa'ida turned him in to another "Enemy Number One" for those who believe they are fighting the eternal "war on terror". For so short is our attention span--and Messrs Bush and Blair, of course, rely on this--we have already forgotten that our leaders' only interest in Zarqawi before the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq was to propagate the lie that Osama bin Laden was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein.
Because Zarqawi met Bin Laden in 2002 and then took up residence in a squalid valley in northern Iraq--inside Kurdistan but well outside the control of both the Kurds and Saddam--Messrs Bush and Blair concocted the fable that this "proved" the essential link between the Beast of Baghdad and the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. The date on which this fictitious alliance was proclaimed--since it is far more important, politically and historically, than the date of Zarqawi's death--was February 5, 2003. The location of the lie was the United Nations Security Council and the man who uttered it was the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
What a sigh of relief there must have been in Washington that Zarqawi was dead and not captured. He might have told the truth.
Yesterday, with an inevitability born of the utterly false promise that the bloodbath in Iraq is yielding dividends, we were supposed to believe that the death of Zarqawi was a famous victory. The American press dusted off their favorite phrase: "terrorist mastermind". No one, I suspect, will be able to claim the $25m on his head--unless he was betrayed by his own hooded gunmen--but the American military, stained by the blood of Haditha, received a ritual pat on the back from the Commander-in-Chief. They had got their man, the instigator of civil war, the flame of sectarian hatred, the head chopper who supposedly murdered Nicholas Berg. Maybe he was all these things. Or maybe not. But it will bring the war no nearer to its end, not because of the inevitable Islamist rhetoric about the "thousand Zarqawis" who will take his place, but because individuals no longer control--if they ever did--the inferno of Iraq. Bin Laden's death would not damage al-Qa'ida now that he--like a nuclear scientist who has built an atom bomb--has created it. Zarqawi's demise--and only al-Qa'ida's killers would have listened to him, not the ex-Iraqi army officers who run the real Iraqi insurgency--will not make an iota of difference to the slaughter in Mesopotamia.
Messrs Bush and Blair slyly admitted as much yesterday when they warned that the insurgency would continue. But this raised another question. Will the eventual departure of Bush and Blair provide an opportunity to end this hell/ disaster? Or have the results of their folly also taken on a life of their own, unstoppable by any political change in Washington or London? Already we forget the way in which the same American forces credited with Zarqawi's death had proved only a few weeks ago that he was a bumbling incompetent. The Beast of Ramadi--or Fallujah or Baquba or wherever--had produced a videotape in which he fired a light machine gun while promising victory to Islam. Days later, the Americans showed the rough cuts of the same video--in which Zarqawi could be seen pleading for help from his comrades after a bullet jammed in the breech of the weapon.
In prison in Jordan, back in the days when he was a mafiosi rather than a mahdi, Zarqawi would drape blankets around his bed, curtains that would conceal him from his fellow prisoners, a cave--a Bin Laden cave--from which he would emerge to stroke or strike the men in his cell. Possessive of his wife, he left her with so little money that she had to go out to work in his native Zarqa. When his mother died, Zarqawi sent no condolences.
Like Bin Laden--the man of whom he was both beholden and intensely jealous--he had already transmogrified, undergone that essential transubstantiation of all violent men, from the personal to the immaterial, from the uncertainty of life to the certainty of death. Zarqawi's videotape was an act of extreme vanity that may have led to his death and he may have made it, subconsciously, to be his last message.
That the intelligence services of King Abdullah of Jordan--descendant of the monarch whom Sir Winston Churchill plopped off to the Hashemite throne--might have located Zarqawi's "safe house" in Baquba was a suitably ironic historical act. The man who believed in caliphates had struck at the kingdom--killing 60 innocents in three hotels--and the old colonial world had struck back.
A king's anger will embrace a duke or two. Even an ex-jailbird. Which, in the end, is probably all that Zarqawi was.
Robert Fisk
Hasn't Fisk's time in the Middle East been spent brown-nosing and being hosted lavishly by the dictators he has defended in the Western press; the dictators who oppress so brutally the people he claims to feel sorry for when the yanks and poms attack those countries and take out the dictators?
I am sure I read something by Mark Steyn about that, though he could have been writing about Fisk's fellow hypocrite, George Galloway.
Reason and rationality from the guest poster at my hero Greenwald's blog -- whose book debuted at no. 11 on the NYT best sellers list today.
Let me start by saying that I do not begrudge those who are celebrating al-Zarqawi's death the right to take solace in it. They believe that his death signals a victory in Iraq and/or against terrorism and that this will help achieve peace in Iraq. That is an admirable thing to be happy about. I hope they are correct.
As a matter of principle, I do not believe the act of killing another human is in itself ever something to be celebrated; I do not celebrate death. If the death of al-Zarqawi means that there will be less death and horror in Iraq as a result, then that is what we are to celebrate. Al-Zarqawi's death is but a means to that end and it is important to draw the distinction between his death and the consequences of that death, otherwise we dehumanize ourselves, we become desensitized to the act of killing, which should always be a solemn affair. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster" and what not.
I do not feel that celebrating is in order so long as death and mayhem in Iraq persists. I believe it calls for cautious optimism, but that there is nothing to celebrate until peace has been brought to the region. And even then it will be a time for reflection upon the cost upon which that peace was bought.
Anonymous said...
"Hey fellafellafullashita, you have no fucking idea.You brainwashed fool who believes every word as gospel that comes from official US press releases to their heavily censored pro-Isreal and US mainstream media outlets."
Hey, anonymous, I think that you are the one who has no fucking idea. Here is my question? If you think that I am brainwashed, where then that you get your ideas or facts from ? Aha! Don't tell me that it is the same internet Google and the same print media that you get access to as I do. Well , if you know something that it is not available by Google or the daily available media, then you must be an intelligence officer of some government that you only know things that I don't get access to. So, how come that you don't grasp reality. The only hoo ha now aired and loud mouth of the ilk of Fisk & Locke, is because of certain people in Irag who fucked up the opportunity given to them. Put it this way. If there was no insurgency, as perhaps everyone in Irag would say, lets take this opportunity given to us by the good samaritans (Bush & Blair) and start building our own future. If the country is at peace and the reconstructions proceed smoothly , the formations of legal institutions proceed smoothly, then there will be no hoo ha and demand for the interview of the newsmedia of the likes of Fisk & Locke. Their services are not needed since everything goes smoothly. They only get to be interviewed by TV3 John Cambell because there is insurgency. If insurgency never materialised, then Fisk & Locke would have been disappeared from the media.
Now anonymous, if you don't get that, then suggest that you should enrol in a course in Logics 101, then you perhaps finally realised that you have been brainwashed by the likes of Fisk & Locke.
Post a Comment