June 09, 2006

Zarqawi Strike Aftermath

AllahPundit digs this up from the Times of London:

Al-Zarqawi's second wife Israa, in her late teens, and their 18-month-old baby, Abdul Rahman, died in the strike, Jordanian officials told The Times. Israa was the daughter of Yassin Jarrad, a Palestinian Islamic militant, who is blamed for the killing in 2004 of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, the Iraqi Shia leader.

Officials also said that Jordan would not allow the body of al-Zarqawi to be buried in his native country.

I guess I should feel sorrow that Zarqawi's wife and child died, but I can't seem to find my sympathy right now. Israa is the daughter and wife of terrorists, and the world is diminished by her loss no more than it was when Eva Braun died, and perhaps less.

Abdul Rahman, some are sure to note, was only an 18-month old infant, and it is true that he has done nothing wrong. He was however, the son and grandson of terrorists, and odds were that he would have grown into the "family business." If Uday and Qusay Hussein are any indication, he could have grown up to be even more of a sociopath than his father.

But the violent termination of the al-Zarqawi bloodline isn't the only news of note in this Times article. The move to center stage of Zarqawi's suspected successor shoots holes in one of the most firmly held liberal lies about the war, that Iraq had no ties with al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion:'s likely successor was an Egyptian national, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, whom the radical leader first met in 2001 at a terrorism training camp in Afghanistan. Al-Masri, who has a $50,000 (£27,000) price on his head, is believed have come to Baghdad in 2002 on a mission to set up al-Qaeda's first cell in Iraq.

al-Masri was setting up al Qaeda cells in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion?

So much for the liberal lie that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (well except for Abu Nidal. And Abu Abbas. And Abdul Rahman Yasin. And—oh, you get the point)

Look for this "fact" to be hammered again and again as long as al-Masri remains alive.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 9, 2006 10:03 PM | TrackBack

Abdul Rahman, some are sure to note, was only an 18-month old infant, and it is true that he has done nothing wrong. He was however, the son and grandson of terrorists, and odds were that he would have grown into the "family business."

That's beneath you CY.

As you know, the battle against Islamofascism is primarily about winning hearts and minds. How do you expect moderates in the Middle East to trust our mission there if you value the life of a baby so lightly?

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 9, 2006 11:16 PM

The kid was born 18 months ago, concieved 27 months ago, that kid was a war baby, concieved during the darkest days of terror in Iraq, and Zak's "spiritual advisor" who is also dead, and a terrorist was named "Abdul rahman." So in all likelihood the kid wasn't just the son and grandson, he was the equivalent of a godchild to a terrorist, and a namesake for the same guy.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 9, 2006 11:29 PM

Wickedpinto & CY -- You're disgusting. It's okay to kill babies that were conceived during the war? Babies with certain names? Babies whose parents or godparents or grandparents committed a crime? Or do you require two out of three?

You're betraying the heritage of your country (assuming your from the US). My US celebrates the rule of law and the inalienable rights of the individual.

Aside from the heartlessness of what you say, consider the pragmatics. Our aim is to spread democracy. The cliche is that you can't force democracy at the barrel of a gun. In other words, we have to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims. There is no way in hell we can do this if moderate Muslims believe -- rightly, in your case -- that we hold their lives as less important than our own.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 12:55 AM


I'm not celebrating the death of a child, I'm just not that mourneful about it. My America sanctions the slaughter of children for eugenics (downs babies being aborted, reduced digit development, or inconvenient time of conception) and I disagree with that. Fewer children have been incidental victims in the opposition to complete barbarism, than the OH! so civil application of abortion.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 01:17 AM

(continued)I will tell you this. It is FLOGGING horrible! that these guys can come home after slaughtering nearly 100 people at the imam ali mosque (which approximately times with the conception of this child) and go home and engage with their TEENAGE wife, in order to create a new victim of the vile and hateful practice of extreme islamic lunacy.

I didn't pick that kids fate, Fed didn't pick that kids fate, heck, we didn't even pick the mothers fate, since she is just a womb with a mouth, a mouth that should never be used. It wasn't the pilot that picked their fates, it wasn't the commander that picked their fates, it wasn't Rumsfeld, or the President. It was the Father, and Husband of those individuals who did so.

See? You think in western terms. If you knew that at any moment, you might be gunned down, you would spend all your time with your wife and children? If you thought a bomb might be sighted in on you, would you live in the same home as your newborn baby?

It is HORRIBLE! that that child died, but, all things considered? I rather that kid die, with his father, than 100 more people die in Iraq at the hands of that childs father. If it offends you? Call it a 12th trimester abortion. That might make it easier.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 01:17 AM

Our aim is to spread democracy. The cliche is that you can't force democracy at the barrel of a gun.

Actually, we are spreading freedom, in the form of democracy. The thing is that freedom is an act of the people, we can't control people, but we can control process, the process we can manipulate to the goal of freedom is democracy, much more easily than others, because, if we keep our guns trained on autocrats, the people might realize that they are free, even when the F up and elect autocrats. This is IN FACT the first "imperialism" of self determination in the history of the world outside of the US Revolution.

And you changed the talking point. It USED to be "you can't pursue peace with violence" I think that was a (DAMN! it's late) the guy who churchhill replaced? ARGH! slogan of that guy. ARGH! ( I SO KNOW IT, I hate forgetting things I should be able to recall in the same way that Cyrus remembers that Bush is Hitler)

Even though about 50 years before Churchill, Clausewitz, the greatest military mind that ever was, described peace as "the removal of ability, and ultimately will of the nation to wage war" You are assuming that we are Pax Romana, when in fact, we are (though I'm an atheist) Pax christos. We don't spread the peace of America, we are hoping for the peace of freedom, and choice.

Kinda a bitch to oppress a nation that likes doing as it pleases within SIMPLE rules.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 01:27 AM

CHAMBERLAIN!! Thats the guys name.

Man, I SO had to remember that before your pathetic memory of history and the world Cyrus.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 03:31 AM

My, how "touchy-feely," Cyrus. I take no joy in this child's death, I just pragmatically realize what he would likely become, and therefore, don't feel any diappointment in his loss, either.

If you are a Democrat, Cyrus, "your America" celebrates the slaughter of millions babies a year for the sake of convenience and the abdication of responsibility, so give it a rest that this one made it past the age that you would normally kill it.

At some point, you must also realize that democracy was, is and will be spread at the barrel of a gun, and almost always has been. Our country was kickstarted by the Shot Heard Round the World, fought a bloodly war to maintain that nation, and used the American fighting man to bring freedom and democracy back to Europe twice in the past century.

The alter of democracy always requires the sacrifice of the blood of heroes, Cyrus.

Of course, that's my America. Your's may be something different.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2006 06:05 AM

It's okay to kill babies that were conceived during the war?

Actually in the USA its apparently still OK to kill'em even while their still in the womb.

I would suggest you anger is misdirected given the orders of magnitude differences in the rates of "baby killings"

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 10, 2006 07:48 AM

Well said CY and WickedPinto.

Posted by: Ali at June 10, 2006 07:54 AM

So Jordan won't allow that POS to be buried there? Anyone know any pig farmers that could lend a hand?

Posted by: Tim at June 10, 2006 10:09 AM

Two or three people noted that we abort babies in this country. Do you really mean to say, we abort babies in the US, therefore we need feel no remorse in killing an 18 month old in Iraq.

My, how "touchy-feely," Cyrus.

Not as much as you might think. The reason I'm upset is because your "justified killing" idea is all too common. It serves to alienate the very people that we need to trust us. You say you want democracy, but you act as though your primary concern is revenge. Our effort is doomed if the average Iraqi believes we are acting out of revenge.

If we want these people to trust us, we must recognize the humanity of their innocents.

At some point, you must also realize that democracy was, is and will be spread at the barrel of a gun, and almost always has been.

That's simply wrong. "Democracy doesn't flow from the barrel of a gun" is a cliche. You could bring up Germany or Japan, but in neither case did we fight to win hearts and minds.

Our country was kickstarted by the Shot Heard Round the World

No, that was the one that killed the Arch Duke before WW I. Sure we fought for our independence, but that was not a case of King George trying to force democracy on us, it was a battle against a tyrant.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 10:58 AM

I for one don't favor the whole "hearts and minds" theme. You win wars by destroying the enemies will to fight, not by making him your buddy. Nobody likes the idea of our heroes killing babies, but as General Sherman put it, "War is cruelty, and you can not refine it" and "the harsher it is fought, the sooner it will be over". Sherman knew what he was talking about. His brutal campaign in Georgia shocked the Confederates. One reason that General Lee gave for not launching a guerilla insurgency of his own when it was obvious that the end was near was that his men would become "bands of marauders and the enemy's cavalry would...overrun many sections they may never have occasion to visit." Terrorising the enemy WORKS.
The more HUMANITARIAN course is to fight this war brutally because it will shorten it. Let every would-be terrorist thug know that his decision to join with the killers will result in the death of everything he holds dear. The insurgency in Iraq is so severe because those people didn't even realize that they were defeated. To them, the war is still on because they retain the will to fight. We have to fight this war, Cyrus, and we must win. Let's make this PERSONAL. We killed Ghadaffi's family too and it shut him up. I say we end this war quickly and stop crying about one teenager and a baby. What does that mean against the lives of millions and the chances of peace in this century? Get yourself a sense of perspective, man.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 11:44 AM

Don't Dine with the Terror Turds!!!

Posted by: Boghie at June 10, 2006 12:10 PM

Cyrus' thoughts are somehow overlooking the reality of the situation. This is a war. Zarqawi was the top murdering, slaughtering, father, son, mother, daughter and baby-killing terrorist in the war zone. He brought the fate to his family himself. As posted above, if you are on the run, during a war, and there is a price on your head, and the United States Military is the one after you, you don't bring it around your family. That is the reality. We will win this war, without any help from the sensitive-war minded like Cyrus.

Posted by: DJ at June 10, 2006 12:49 PM

Thrill -- I for one don't favor the whole "hearts and minds" theme. You win wars by destroying the enemies will to fight, not by making him your buddy.

Winning hearts and minds is the key to counter-insurgency. I don't think that there is any debate about this. Brutality towards the innocent makes the Iraqis lose faith in us.

DJ -- Cyrus' thoughts are somehow overlooking the reality of the situation. This is a war.

That's not true. The innocent die in every war, and the Iraqis can accept an amount of it. My point is that it is counter-productive, and contrary to our heritage, to dismiss the killing of the innocent as just.

Just the other day the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq said exactly what I am saying, "There is a limit to the acceptable excuses. Yes a mistake may happen but there is an acceptable limit to mistakes." Don't give me any baloney about the MSM or tell me he's being taken out of context either, you know he said that and you know what he meant by it.

Or is the Prime Minister on the other side too?

Brutality is not the answer here, and lots of you are coming down on the wrong side.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 02:26 PM

WickedPinto -- I don't mean to ignore your other posts. You seem to be going in a couple of different directions in your late-night posts. Please let me know if I've left anything unaddressed.

No one is saying that babies will not die in war, that always happens. All I'm trying to say is that the US doesn't kill a baby and then say it was the father's fault. It's counter-productive and wrong. Do you expect Iraqis to trust the US more or less when we kill a baby and then, instead of expressing remorse, say it was the father's fault? Every time we kill an innocent it pushes relatives towards the insurgency's side. Again no one is saying we can prevent this, but it is the right thing to do on every level to express remorse, or barring that just saying nothing. There is no advantage to blaming the Iraqis for the baby's death.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 02:36 PM

Cy, the Iraqi government must win the "hearts and minds" ultimately. They will never do so if the people perceive them as being weak and effeminate like an American liberal.
It is well understood in the Arab world that reprisals extend to family members. We don't need to high five each other if a kid gets killed, but it is not a reason to avoid taking a shot at the child's evil father.
Little niceties like these will have to fall by the wayside if we're ever going to win this war against extreme Islamism.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 03:17 PM

Hate to spoil your rant Cyrus, but if you followed the news, later updates by Mgen Caldwell stipulated that no children were killed. Do you have something that contrdicts that?

If in fact the baby was killed, it is sad. Al Zarqawi was personally responible for killing untold Iraqi children. In fact he and the other thugs have used children as human shields and booby traps. Even the MSM has reported those facts. The MSM has even documented the extraordinary risks our troops take to avoid harming children and innocents. Unfortunately, cannot give them blanket amnesty because they use children so despicably. Because if you do they will kill you. And I do mean you, personally. Because if we do we will lose over there, and if we do then we will eventually lose over here.

Finally, the idea of winning the "hearts and minds" of Islamofacists is simply fallacious. It is not even worth contemplating. The only way they will be defeated is to root them out wherever we find them and close up their safe havens. When the governments of the Mid-East finally learn that there is a terrible price to pay for allowing hateful filth to be preached to their youth, then perhaps "hearts and minds" will change--in a few generations. Until then, strength, vigilance and unremitting resolve are our only defenses.

Posted by: Bob Gilkison at June 10, 2006 03:21 PM

I give up. I've tried to post a reply for half an hour and keep getting an "objectionable content" error.

CY -- does give you a list of forbidden keywords? I'm tired of guessing.


Posted by: Cyrys McElderry at June 10, 2006 05:14 PM

I agree with you, Cy, I've had the same problem lately.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 05:34 PM

Wow, that's really cold. I think we should all be happy Zarquai can’t plan more terrorist attacks, but at least mourn the loss of an innocent child’s life.

Your argument that the child would grow up to be a terrorist also kind of sounds like the excuse that pro-life supporters use to justify the abortion when the parents are in poor, involved in crime, drugs, etc., etc.

Posted by: Keram at June 10, 2006 05:40 PM

Thrill, you're just dead wrong. Brute force is not the only key to winning a war. If it was, our "shock and awe" plan would have ended the war early on, The Taliban wouldn’t be gaining strength right now in the South of Afghanistan, and Vietnam would have been remembered as a great American victory.

Moreover, unmitigated military force may stop an insurgency for a period of time, but it creates a legacy of opposition that often blows up in the ruling regime's face. This is what happened in Argentina in the 70s under the military junta.

Winning hearts and minds is especially important in a war against terrorism. It prevents normal citizens from becoming radicalized and joining terrorists. If we turn normal citizens against jihadists and the internal Iraqi insurgents, they're more likely to join the army or the Iraqi police forces. The sooner Iraqis can fight the insurgency on their own, the sooner our boys get back home. I think we all want that here.

Posted by: Keram at June 10, 2006 05:42 PM

I'm not saying you can win the hearts and minds of hard-line Al Quaeda members; defeating those type of people is where the use of force is necessary. It's the normal citizens we have to worry about.

Also, don’t ignore the larger picture here: the war on terrorism. Engaging in a brutal war in Iraq, will only give Al Quaeda more propaganda, creating more terrorists in the rest of the world.

Or we could just go with Thrill’s machismo-drenched plan and kill 'em all (ye-haw) and feel like big men. Because Sherman's tactics in 19th Century America are totally applicable in 21st century Iraq. It's practically the same war.

Also, this Questionable Content filter is ridiculous. CY, lay out some guidelines so we know what triggers the QC filter.

Posted by: Keram at June 10, 2006 05:51 PM

It serves to alienate the very people that we need to trust us...If we want these people to trust us, we must recognize the humanity of their innocents

Harry Truman had exactly the same type call to make -- he went with the bombs too.

Who's judgment do I have more faith in - Truman's or yours? I'll take Truman's, history vindicated, judgment every time.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 10, 2006 05:56 PM

"hearts and minds" is necessary if we are to make Iraq a Vassal state. We aren't doing that. What we are doing, is eliminating individuals, and groups that are standing in the way of the will of the people, and enforcing simple INTERNATIONAL rules governing the basic allowable behaviour of a nation.

As described by the UN ironicly.

We need the hearts and minds only if our goal is to make iraq the 51st state, thats not our goal.

We kill the people we don't like, let the people decide, if we don't like their decisions we give them the rope to hang themselves by.

I've said this so many times. The beauty about democratizing the world? it' isn't peace, or freedom or the great millenial global community. It is that for the will of the people to be counted, they must stand up and proclaim themselves. Once democracy exists, like in "palestine" theres no one to blame for the repurcussions but yourself.

As for abortion, it's fair game. I'm sick of this stupid tyranny of the uninformed. (thats what I sometimes call the whole "for the children" argument, cuz children are stupid, it's one of the things they do very well, they are stupid until they are informed, and the fact I have a phrase for it proves how often that argument is used.) If you have a problem with a 12th trimester abortion, then you should have a problem with a 1st-3rd.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 06:21 PM

No Keram we did not use "shock and awe" in Vietnam or Iraq. That's just one thing you've got wrong. We held back in Vietnam and we're showing too much restraint now. In Sherman's day, he dealt with attacks on convoys, disruptions of communications, kidnappings, and acts of sabotage on the part of Confederate raiders much as our troops deal with the insurgents. You want more recent examples? We only showed compassion to the Germans and Japanese after waging the most horrific war ever on a civilian population. The result? Peace.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 06:33 PM

Since his destiny seems so predetermined,would you have favored the abortion of this child?

Is there a list of crimes that you would follow to decide which childrens deaths would be greived or not greived?

Posted by: Master of Thieves at June 10, 2006 06:34 PM

Well, I just combed through writings by Sun Tzu, Sun Bin, Miyamoto Musashi, Machiavelli, Alfred Mahan, Clausewitz, Liddell Hart, Ralph Peters, John Keegan, and David Hackworth. They come from a broad spectrum of cultures and time periods and not one of them advocates "grieving for" the enemies children and making nice with him UNTIL he surrenders. I'm curious to know what the basis is for your military strategy there, Keram Bonaparte. The Islamists think that we are weak and have no resolve and unfortunately, they're right about the liberals and the press.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 06:47 PM

Really, you just went through all of that? In 15 min.? Impressive.

If you'll notice, I never said that we shouldn't have attacked Zarquai. I only said that when innocent life is taken, we at least recognize and mourn those caught in the middle. READ: Not the terrorists.

Also, your “recent examples” are of warfare fought between states. The times have changed; we're no longer fighting states, but independent, decentralized groups like Al Quaeda. I'm all for learning from the past, but you also have to recognize when the times have changed and adjust. Terrorism is a wholly new form of warfare that combines guerrilla tactics with advanced forms of propaganda. Total war was a military theory that addressed state vs. state warfare, and does not address fighting an insurgency or international terrorism.

Moreover, total war would result in large-scale civilian casualties, especially considering the fact that insurgents can blend in with the rest of society. These deaths would be used by Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups to recruit more troops. Remember, terrorist groups have used events like the firebombing of Dresden as an example of the West’s indifference to human life.

Total war does not adequately address our current situation. That's why I'm against total war. Not because I want to coddle terrorists or cut and run.

Posted by: Keram Bonaparte at June 10, 2006 08:45 PM

While we are trying to "win hearts and minds," the heartless killers are seeking to wipe out our behinds. I am sorry that an 18 month old child got in the crossfire of Terrorist Abu Z and his minions. I was devastated when I read about 2 year old Christine, an American child who was on one of the doomed planes on 9/11/01. I was not too devastated to wish death to the scumbags who planned her death. Now I am resolved more than ever that our Military, the finest in the world, will keep hunting and bagging the vile creatures AKA Terrorists.

After hunting season is over, I will be willing to entertain the "hearts and minds" theory.

God bless our Military and God bless America.

Posted by: Belle Patriotic at June 10, 2006 09:24 PM

VERY well done master of thieves. However here's the difference.

The target of the bomb, wasn't the child, it was his vile, and inhuman parent.

The only target of a vaccuum tube in a chicks slit, is the child.

Abortions are targeted assasinations of children.

Death of anyone in the area of a murderous scumbag is un-intended, and incidental.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 11, 2006 12:46 AM

The times have changed; we're no longer fighting states, but independent, decentralized groups like Al Quaeda

AQ aspires to be a state and claim nation sized turf. The new Caliphate and all that kinda prophetic stuff they yammer on about...

I take OBL at his word on this.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2006 06:43 AM

All arguing aside - the fact that the "insurgents" - or as Cindy Sheehan calls them - "freedom fighters" - hide behind civilians to attempt to gain a tactical advantage is a disgrace. Even Hussein used this during Gulf War I. It is unfortunate, but if you choose to do this during war, there will be civilian casualties. It is sad, but it is reality. And the fact is that the insurgents know this. They know they make targets of innocents, but they don't give a crap. Anyone who decides to hide behind his own family is even worse.

BTW - Viet Nam was nowhere near shock and awe. McNamara would not let the military do what was needed until it was too late. The servicepeople who fought there literally had their hands tied by the government.

Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 09:33 AM

It sounds more like YOU have a problem with the fire bombing of Dresden than the Islamists, Keram. Dresden was a calamity and although it was of questionable necessity, the destruction of German cities made it clear to the German people that continued resistance was suicidal and that future aggression would result in the destruction of their nation and culture. War is SUPPOSED to suck and can't be the clean, surgical little thing you want it to be if it is to accomplish anything. What can you say about Gulf War 1, when Saddam could claim victory simply because he was still in power? Because we did not go far enough, we had to go back and are paying a higher price. If we do not push it now, we may find the future bill far too high to pay. The softness you're in favor of will do nothing but get more of our troops killed.

Posted by: Thrill at June 11, 2006 01:13 PM

Yes, I do have a problem with Dresden. Most military historians (with the benefit of hindsight) say it was unnecessary. I don't blame those leaders that planned the attack; they were doing what they thought was right at the time. I only ask that we learn from history and try to avoid those mistakes in the future.

As I’ve said before, total war does not address international terrorism. I'd rehash the points I made above, but I don't feel like repeating my arguments again. So far, you have not addressed the international nature of the Iraq War, instead opting to explain why we won WW II. I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on this issue, if you have any.

I agree with Specter that the choice of the enemy to hide behind civilians is a reality, and as such, civilian deaths are going to happen. But resorting WW II methods as Thrill has advocated (large-scale bombing campaigns, I assume), would simply be taking civilian lives without any guarantee of killing insurgents. Gurrilla warfare takes such an approach into account. For example, part of the reason Ché Guevara’s “focista” theory of guerrilla warfare advocated fighting in dense jungles and mountainous regions was so that bombing cities like we did in WW II would have no effect on their ability to wage war.

Total war would also undermine the newly elected Iraqi government. Even more, such a campaign would also cause and international outcry, which has the potential to hurt economic and political agreements. I’m glossing over this now because I realize we’re way off topic, but just read “Power and Interdependence” by Keohane and Nye. It’s a little dated, but I think the implications of the book point out why a unilateral, total war in an age of interdependence is impossible.

From what I’ve been reading, our troop level is our main problem, but that’s for a whole different post.

In respect to CY, I'd also ask that if you want to continue this debate, e-mail me. We're way off topic right now.

Posted by: Keram at June 11, 2006 03:41 PM

What I favor is sponsoring the removal of the Saudi royal family from power, increasing the number of troops in Iraq, expanding the war onto Syrian and Iranian soil if needs be, forcible resettlement of hostile neighborhoods and villages within Iraq, actively funding, recruiting, and training an insurgency of our own in Iran, retaliatory destruction of terroists' families' homes in Iraq, and expanding the facilites of Camp X Ray to accept all members of the liberal media and Air America. How's that for starters?

Posted by: Thrill at June 11, 2006 05:01 PM

Also, you're wrong about two more things: I have not called for large scale bombing as the only solution to international terrorism. I do however, think that we should have rules of engagement that favor the lives of our troops over a hostile or indifferent population. If an area such as Fallujah must be cleared of terrorists, I would prefer it be flattened from the air rather than risk the life of a single infantryman.
Second thing is that economic interdependence does not prevent wars. That it would was common thinking right before the First World War. It's even arguable that interdependence makes war MORE likely.

Posted by: Thrill at June 11, 2006 05:08 PM

The story has changed.No baby was killed.

Posted by: Little Debbie at June 11, 2006 05:09 PM

I think what is interesting is that depending on the Iraqi theater, the ROE are different. Doesn't that seem like it could confuse troops? Especially as you move them about - anybody know if that happens on a regular basis?

I will say that Z-man got what he deserved. He was responsible for more innocents being killed than anybody in Iraq since Hussein. It's unfortunate that he chose to hide with civilians, but so be it. mega-hundred pound bombs - even laser-guided - do not discriminate well.

Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 06:48 PM

And Little Debbie - that is the most cogent point of this argument. The news media jumped the gun again.

Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 06:49 PM

And Little Debbie - that is the most cogent point of this argument. The news media jumped the gun again.
Posted by Specter at June 11, 2006 06:49 PM

True dat....and and a few bloggers too!

Posted by: Little Debbie at June 11, 2006 08:21 PM

Thrill, love your comment. Like I was saying all along, if the US have been more thorough in eradicating the old Baath leaderships, and supporter at the begining of the war we would not have Sunni foolish enough to harbor terrorists. The Sunni should have been make to thank Allah everyone morning that they are allow to live much less make any demand. We should have encourage the Shi'ites to slaughter the Sunni, the Siithe deserve that much from decades being terrorize by the Sunni and the Baath Party. It was a mistake by the US to be "neutral" on the ethic issue. We should have supported the right of the Shi'ites to get revenge. Divided the country in two, the Kurd and the Shi'ites.

Posted by: Anh at June 12, 2006 02:25 PM

"We should have encourage the Shi'ites to slaughter the Sunni, the Siithe deserve that much from decades being terrorize by the Sunni and the Baath Party."

Wow, I've seen a lot of crazy things advocated on this blog, but REPRISAL GENOCIDE??!??!?!? ARE YOU KIDDING???!!! You do realize that’s the same kind of logic the Hutus used to start the Rwandan Genocide, right?

How about putting people on trial for their crimes and seeking justice? Doesn't that make more sense than irrational killings? And we all know how much stability comes from ethnic strife, ask Rawanda, or Sudan, or Bosnia.

Have we really become so distanced from war that advocating an attack on the entire region and genocide sound like good ideas?

It's also ethnic, not ethic. Ironic that you'd use that word because you apparently have no ethics.

I'm through with this blog.

Posted by: Keram at June 12, 2006 10:39 PM

bye bye Keram.

Posted by: Specter at June 13, 2006 07:23 AM