guess what country funded all these religious schools all over the world? guess what country wouldn't have crap, if the USA didn't show them some stuff about oil?
I'm not condoning the Saudi govermennt, far from it, but under there strict society, they've tried to be as liberal as possible. you have to understand there position. there country is heavily populated by whabbist, they on one hand have to please the outside world and on the other have to please an extra fantaical population. they unfortunately have to play a double edge sword game to keep all parties happy. imagine a saudi run by whabbists?.. the oil maarket and more importantly the world economy would dissolve. good or bad, the Saudi royal family is in a hard position.
well the pbs documentary shows that. you should watch it. you know whats so hypocritical? these wahabisits were against TV cause it was western and it was showing images etc. yet, now they love it cause it spreads their crazy message. they showed this reading rainbow kids show and these little kids were receiting how great it would be to suicide bomber in palestine. even more hypocritical is how they hate us for supporting israel, so they did that oil embargo in the 70s and we sent Henry Kissinger.. A JEW! to negotiate the end of the embargo. That whole thing when the king was assasinated was crazy too, it was a family member taking revenge for his brother who tried to burn down a TV station because TV is INFIDEL!!!
I'd like to think that the citizens of this country have more to be proud of than killing someone. I'd like to think that the citizens of my country would not so glorify this action as to post videos of the event and pictures of the deceased on every major news outlet. I'd like to think that people in this country realize that occasional killings will not forever satiate their fear and anger. I'd like to think that our government will realize that these actions, although jusitifed, will never solve the root cause of terrorism, rather it probably incites it further. Flame away.
How noble of you. Have any family die at the hands of terrorists? Maybe beheaded..on video? Or blown up with their families while eating dinner or maybe celebrating a wedding? Noble, and totally lacking of empathy.
You are aware that a woman and a child was killed along with Zarqawi. So we also happened to blow up a family too in the process of getting Zarqawi. I suppose we shouldn't have any empathy for that particular child. I totally agree that we had to get Zarqawi and killing him might still save lives that he would've taken through his terrorist actions. That said Rhadamanthus is right. We shouldn't glorify killing someone even when its necessary.
Why the heck not? If I were alive in the 40's I would have jumped for joy hearing of the death of Hitler. I'm not equating the two just pointing out that I disagree with your statement.
Irrational exuberance? That's an interesting take. I was thinking my comments were very measured and was expecting to get flamed by the Bigtexxxs and Roxrans of the board for raining on their parade not the someone like you who opposes the invasion. I agree that we are seeing way too many similarities with Vietnam and one of the biggest similarities is the failure to understand the nature of a civil war and the danger of being caught in the middle. I was one of those who was against a sudden withdraw but the more I see of the situation the more I see that our presence isn't helping them that much and while we have been able to strong arm them into creating a coalition government I question how popular that truly is when we've been seeing sectarian violence continue to rise. During the piece I was hearing about Vietnam a few days ago Henry Kissinger brought up how with the US' guidance South Vietnam was able to form a truly representative government, unfortunately that came shortly before South Vietnam fell. The oppurtunity I see with Al Zarqawi's death is that it gives us one more milestone where we can declare victory and leave. I strongly doubt that the Iraqis want Al Qeada when there isn't the US around acting as occupiers and if we have faith in this new government perhaps this is the time to see if it really can stand on its own. I will agree though that there still is the potential for many things to go wrong and if we start withdrawing Iraq very well may break out into all out civil war and even split into mini-states that further destabilize the region. As I've said before though there are no good solutions to Iraq but we need to consider options and Al Zarqawi's death gives us the option to withdraw while still claiming some semblence of victory.
So you don't care that a woman and a child was also killed in the process? So much for valuing innocent life.
What's your definition of 'glorify'? To me, yes I'm 'ecstatic' that and evil person was sent on (did you watch him beheading someone? Can you envision in your mind all of the innocent Iraqis targeted and blown up by him) Yes, I 'admire' our troops who put themselves in harm's way to do away with this person who did not care whether he killed innocent women and children to achieve his own selfish desires. It's a tragedy that a woman and child were in the home, but how many others' deaths was az responsible for? (And who in the h*ll would ever allow a woman and child anywhere near this murderer with a $25M price on his head?) This deed served humanity. If someone could have bombed a building that Hitler was in in 1939, it would also have been a glorious deed, even if some innocents died. It's a sad day for his soul when many many people find glory in his death, and not just Americans but also so many Iraqis, a people who felt much more the brunt of his visciousness.
I think being 'ecstatic' about something is to 'glorify' it. As I said I agree that Zarqawi had to die and his death probably saved a lot more people. I'm not ecstatic about it and feel bad that some innocent people died in the process. I have a lot of respect for our soldiers partly because I'm not sure that I could kill someone even if I knew it was the right thing to do. And I'm saying this as someone who has put people in the hospital, fought off people in self-defense and even teach a self-defense classes where I talk about the possibility that in a self-defense situation you might have to kill someone. I don't believe we should feel good about killing even in a just cause.
Because you didn't see a problem with glorifying al Zarqawis death even though in the post of mine you were replying too I stated that a woman and a child were killed in the process. That strikes me as a lack of concern for those lives.
Sishir, I was kidding about the "irrational exuberance," comment. Guess I should have put a winky there. I thought the Greenspan crack was a giveaway! I added, "And we may be saying essentially the same thing, anyway," because of this... "One thing I heard is that a lot of the violence now is sectarian and not being fought by foreigners. Al Zarqawi was certainly an impetus to the sectarian violence so now that he's gone there might be a possibility of things quieting down." I think it may have an impact on the suicide bombings. I don't think it's unreasonable to hope for that. I don't feel the same about this comment, "It is still very possible that the sectarian violence may still continue but the Al Qaeda in Iraq organization in Iraq might not be able to survive in Iraq." I think al Qaeda will survive there, sadly, as long as we are there. This, too, I disagreed with, unless you are viewing a withdrawal as a political act, like that in Vietnam, that wasn't based on the military reality on the ground, "In either of those cases this might be the opportunity to start drawing down our forces since either peace comes to Iraq or else the conflict in Iraq is a primarily internal problem for the Iraqis to sort out. Even if Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't totally gone if we can determine that a hard enough blow has been dealt to them we could consider withdrawing since without us there there is no reason for a foreign contingent of Al Qaeda to remain to fight us and its likely that the Iraqis themselves will kick them out." I hope you are right about this diminishing violence there enough for a military withdrawal, but I just don't think it will. It wasn't intended as a "flame," at all. I just disagree with parts of your post, agree with other parts, and think we may have been saying the same thing in yet another part. Did that help, or did I just make it more confusing? (more confusing, probably! ) Keep D&D Civil.
