Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Job

Ding dong the witch is dead

Recommended Posts

Having Western leaders crowing over the murder of a man, on their orders, no matter how vile the man was, is inappropriate though. The language and phraseology I heard being used was no different to hearing terrorists celebrate and congratulate themselves on their exterminations.

Also, apparently it's outrageous for terrorists to publish photos and videos of executions and corpses, but it's fine for us to do it.

al-Zarqawi was filth, there seems to be little question about that. Watching our leaders behave like him and his kind is fucking disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't cheering for the fact that the US finally got rid of this guy like the same thing as people cheering for the fact that Hitler killed himself and thus ending the European Theater of World War 2?

I couldn't exactly word it right, but you get it though, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

Having Western leaders crowing over the murder of a man, on their orders, no matter how vile the man was, is inappropriate though. The language and phraseology I heard being used was no different to hearing terrorists celebrate and congratulate themselves on their exterminations.

Also, apparently it's outrageous for terrorists to publish photos and videos of executions and corpses, but it's fine for us to do it.

al-Zarqawi was filth, there seems to be little question about that. Watching our leaders behave like him and his kind is fucking disgusting.

While I agree with you, Enjay, there is one thing I would like to add. Why do we even bother to claim to be of a higher moral alignment than the terrorists? In the end, we're not (much, if any) better than them in a lot of ways. We're all people and we should be willing to play as dirty as they do in order to even the playing field. Playing a namby pamby moral boy role just gets more of our troops killed. It's like the British when they were fighting the American revolutionaries. They obeyed the rules of war that were the norm then and got their asses handed to them on numerous occasions simply for that reason. The side that bends or breaks these rules is the one who has a distinct advantage, especially in a war of attrition. Is a warm and fuzzy feeling for following the rules really worth it? They already hate us over there. We may as well give them some real reasons to maintain that sentiment. Peace with them is such a near impossibility, it's almost worth it to burn a couple bridges in order to put this ugly mess behind us.

Ergo, take off the white gloves, US & Co., and win this "war."

Share this post


Link to post

Enjay said:
al-Zarqawi was filth, there seems to be little question about that. Watching our leaders behave like him and his kind is fucking disgusting.

We don't even know much and probably never will, aside from what the official sources plan to disclose, plus maybe some leaked info that will be very hard to confirm. It's not like the violence happening in Iraq is dependent on the "Al Qaeda". The Al Qaeda was not tied to Saddam's Iraq and if it is there now in one way or another it may well have gone in with the US/British forces. In short, this news is meaningless except to the American and English governments and their public, if the public wants to buy it at face value or pay attention to it in any way. The main meaning of it is "we're still fighting against terrorism", which is in itself a lie, particularly in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post

Just like we are fighting the war on drugs and gangs...

...even though I've never heard of an Uzi being made in Harlem.

Share this post


Link to post

he he, yep more time to think about what I'm going to put on tomarrow.

I tell ya, life is stressful here in the ol US of A.

Share this post


Link to post

I bet they where aiming at an orphanage for once, and accidentally hit a terrorist, usually its the other way around

Share this post


Link to post
deathbringer said:

I bet they where aiming at an orphanage for once, and accidentally hit a terrorist, usually its the other way around


rofl, that's a good idea, tell them to kill civilians and they'll cap bin laden on the first shot

Share this post


Link to post

We could've totally got Bin Laden Saddam Iran President Fagalot and Zarqawi and all the other fuck heads with two big bombs.

The end!

Share this post


Link to post
Ralphis said:

We could've totally got Bin Laden Saddam Iran President Fagalot and Zarqawi and all the other fuck heads with two big bombs.

The end!



I just think I lost most if not all respect for you.

Please, take a moment and think through what you just suggested.

Are you seriously advocating the use of nuclear weapons offensively against a nebulous criminal organisation?

Share this post


Link to post

I like Ralph's idea. maybe we could nuke Mars while we're at it. Fuck mars. Then we could nuke venus too, because thanks to it I have to see shitty razor commercials.

Just kidding.

Of course We could all rally for peace and mother earth and have big rallies in new york, and leave tons of litter behind, making us all hypocrites in the process.

Yeah, war is bad, but if you really think having holding hand rallies and vigils for peace really worked, we'd have no war. but no. It's human nature. So stop it.
All anti-war AND war proves is that the human race is sick, twisted and the most violent species on the planet (but not the most schitzophrenic, as this title goes to the grizzly bear (thanks to an idaho senator) ) and we will eventually kill ourselves because WE are all shit and we can't get along. Then again, animals fight too, they just don't have nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post

Pwned.

While that guys was a pace of shit, I wouldn't call him a terrorist 'mastermind'

Seriously, terrorism isn't really that organized. somebody kills a bunch of people and terrorist grops decide if they want to take credit for it. Al Zarqawi was the kind of terrorist who took credit for things that even Al-Qaeda said where fucked up.

Still, props for killing someone who deserved it.

Share this post


Link to post

Just 2 points
If it's so wrong for Al_jazeera etc to show pictures of dead American soldiers, why is it "OK" to have a framed picture on show of a dead "terrorist"?
It seems at least one woman and a child were killed in the attack, which seems ok, collateral damage, yet it's wrong when terrorists kill innocents when they attack America?

/edit Abu Musab al-Zarqawi survived the US air strikes in Iraq but died shortly afterwards, the US military says, without giving further details. /edit

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

It seems at least one woman and a child were killed in the attack, which seems ok, collateral damage, yet it's wrong when terrorists kill innocents when they attack America?

I don't think that it's necessarily more okay for the US military to create civilian casualties - in anyone's mindset. At least I hope not. I do believe, though, that it has become so commonplace that it's lost its potency when such figures are actually reported. Not to mention the military's profuse, largely meaningless, apologies for those civilian casualties. Since the civilian casualty count in the US, as well as the number of terrorist attacks that cause them (non-war strikes, mind you) are fewer in number, those civilian deaths catch way more publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Little Faith said:

I just think I lost most if not all respect for you.

Please, take a moment and think through what you just suggested.

Are you seriously advocating the use of nuclear weapons offensively against a nebulous criminal organisation?


Dude this is totally what nukes were built for. Come on.

Or we could drop some daisy cutters or neutron bombs. The neutron bombs would save the oil for us. Come on man think it through I know u'll agree

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

It seems at least one woman and a child were killed in the attack, which seems ok, collateral damage, yet it's wrong when terrorists kill innocents when they attack America?


There's a grave difference between a diliberate unprovoked terrorist attack against a civilian population that kills hundreds of people and the bombing of a building housing the enemy in ligit combat with a little collateral damage.

How can you seriously equate what happened on 9-11 to this...

Share this post


Link to post

Al Zarqawi is dead, hmmm, somehow I don't think it's wrong to celebrate his death. Jeez, people will debate over anything.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×