BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida-linked militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister said Thursday.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening in a house 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala.

''Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated,'' al-Maliki told a news conference, drawing loud applause from reporters as he was flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

[ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Seriously though - my reaction is similar to Stargazer's. How conveeeeenient. I mean, it's probably true - they wouldn't announce it if there was a chance the guy could come forward tomorrow and say, "Missed me! Nyah nyah!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[beavis]heh heh huh heh huh[/butthead]

Seriously though - my reaction is similar to Stargazer's. How conveeeeenient. I mean, it's probably true - they wouldn't announce it if there was a chance the guy could come forward tomorrow and say, "Missed me! Nyah nyah!"

And also, I really don't feel sad that the guy is gone - I mean, he was a really brutal SOB. But it kind of galls me to hear the brutal SOBs on our side crowing over it and making like it's a triumph of good over evil. When in actual fact, it's just a war of brutal assholes killing each other and getting innocent people caught in the crossfire.

---

And who do you propose should be tasked to protect the innocent people from the brutal SOBs?

This death is not the be all and end all, although they did kill a whole lot of Zarquawi's underlings and claim to have raided 17 homes afterwards which were "a treasure trove" of information. Someone else will come and take Zarquawi's place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:

And who do you propose should be tasked to protect the innocent people from the brutal SOBs?

---

I don't think I'd be much help protecting anyone over there, I'm not very strong and I suffer from frequent migraines. I was simply asking Michelle's opinion on the matter. Obviously most Iraqis don't want Zarqawi and other "insurgents" or Americans, Brits, etc. over there causing violence. They want to live in peace. How do they get there?

My question to this thread is about whether the Iraqi journalists were cheering Zarqawi's death freely, or because they wanted to appear on the "right" side to Iraqi government officials, who are quite controlled by the US. Are they worried about appearing on any lists anywhere?

quote:

---

I mean, it's probably true - they wouldn't announce it if there was a chance the guy could come forward tomorrow and say, "Missed me! Nyah nyah!"

---

quote:

---

April 7, 2003

The headlines read, "Body of 'Chemical Ali' found". CNN tells us, "The notorious Iraqi general known as 'Chemical Ali' ... was killed in a coalition airstrike on his home over the weekend, U.S.-led coalition officials said..." Rumsfeld told us, "We believe that the reign of terror of Chemical Ali has come to an end." The Kurds breathe a sigh of relief.

August 21, 2003

The headlines read, "'Chemical Ali' in custody." CNN tells us that the military has indicated Ali Hassan al-Majid was taken into custody several days ago.

Claims of his death in an airstrike have been retracted (the first news I can find of such a retraction being in the article about his capture).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
The problem is, he's been killed so many times, and his role inflated by the acknowledged Pentagon psyops campaign, that we may never know the truth.

---

Well, this article states that the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" group confirmed his death. I suppose that it's possible that it's all an elaborate ruse to fake his own death and continue planning operations in Iraq. That sounds pretty farfetched though.

I also like the quote from Nik Berg's dad. It's probably the most insightful and honest comment in the entire article.

quote:

---

I see more death coming out of al-Zarqawi's death.

---

quote:

---

...I mean, it's probably true - they wouldn't announce it if there was a chance the guy could come forward tomorrow and say, "Missed me! Nyah nyah!"

---

Ahhh. The moral relativism of the left rises again. Can't you just be glad for the many people who will be spared the deprivations of monsters like Zarqawi?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
I think they will have to resurect him, who else are they going to blame for the continuing atrocities. Themselfs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
I think they will have to resurect him, who else are they going to blame for the continuing atrocities. Themselfs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
some of his atrocites

---

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Zarqawi was a great guy, just misunderstood, or anything like that. Just that this is rather meaningless for stopping the carnage in Iraq. Someone will step in and take his place. Interesting that the US military recently released a tape ridiculing Zarqawi for mishandling his weapon in an al Qaeda training video.

Also -- the guy has been killed off more than once in Afghanistan and Iraq....

quote:

---

Zarqawi, the notorious shape-shifter who, according to grainy video evidence, was able to regenerate lost limbs, speak in completely different accents, alter the contours of his bone structure and also suffered an unfortunate binge-and-purge weight problem which caused him to change sizes with almost every appearance, was head of an organization that quite fortuitously dubbed itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" just around the time that the Bush Administration began changing its pretext for the conquest from "eliminating Iraq's [non-existent] weapons of mass destruction" to "fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

---

quote:

---

Despite its fortuitousness, the reputed death of the multi-legged brigand came as no real surprise. After all, approximately 376 of his "top lieutenants" had been killed or captured by Coalition forces in the past three years, according to press reports, and some 5,997 lower-ranking "al Qaeda terrorists" have been killed in innumerable operations during that same period, according to Pentagon press releases. With the widespread, on-going, much-publicized decimation of his group, Zarqawi had obviously been rendered isolated and ineffective – except of course for the relentless series of high-profile terrorist spectaculars he kept carrying out, according to other Pentagon press releases.

---

Death of al-Zarqawi in Iraq boosts morale of Canadian troops in Afghanistan

quote:

---

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Word of the death of a top al-Qaida leader in Iraq quickly rippled through the ranks of Canadian and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, boosting the morale of troops fighting their own battle against insurgents.

---

And the media has not mentioned one little troubling aspect - what if the next leader of Bin Laden's gang in Iraq turn outs to be even more blood thirsty or dare I say it - more effective?

My reaction: good riddance to awful rubbish.

It's too early to tell what impact this will have on the insurgency, of which Al Qaeda in Iraq was a minor though very brutal player. I hope for the sake of the long suffering Iraqi people that political solutions are found, and there is no further excuse for the massive destabilizing US military presence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:
Ahhh. The moral relativism of the left rises again. Can't you just be glad for the many people who will be spared the deprivations of monsters like Zarqawi?

---

What about the deprivations of monsters like the US forces in Iraq? At the last tally they've murdered and tortured orders of magnitude more people then Zarqawi.

quote:

---

This IS a triumph of good over evil!

---

No, it is a triumph of one immoral, greedy for money and power, warped by wacko religion, insane, bloodthirsty, thugish band of morons over another immoral, greedy for money and power, warped by wacko religion, insane, bloodthirsty, thugish band of morons. And the question of the day, of course, is how many children did those 500lb bombs cause to become "collateral damage" in the process. Given that the CNN shows pictures of children toys being "salvaged" out of the wreckage of surrounding houses I would think the number is higher then zero, as usual when your "good" triumphs.

Corrected for accuracy: the ratio of murders and torture by US vs that of Zarquawi increased to reflect the rather depressing reality.

[ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Someone will step in and take his place.

---

On CBC today I heard the truth not once but twice. Once from Robert Fisk, once from Eric Margolis.

That Zarqawi was a Jordanian criminal who tried to ride on Bin Laden's coattails, proclaimed himself leader of the non-existant group "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," tried to start a civil war against the Shias, and tried to make a name for himself with atrocities. All of which so pissed off both Bin Laden and the mainstream resistance groups in Iraq that they disowned him. They will be cheering his death, since he was a hindrance to them.

"Four other people, including a woman and a child, were killed with al-Zarqawi and Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi, the terrorist’s spiritual consultant."

I wonder if the child had it coming, for being related to someone who knew him.

The whole war, both sides, disgusts me. It was unnecessary from the beginning - Zarqawi was a brutal shit, but he would have been a toothless brutal shit without the chaos that resulted from the US invasion.

There are always, always, brutal monsters available to wreak havoc and build on chaos. He just happened to be in the neighbourhood. And the kid just happened to be in the house when Bush "delivered justice" to Zarqawi.

If anyone invaded BC, laid waste to Vancouver and began an occupation described best as incompetence combined with intolerance, someone here would take the title.

Hearing Bush talking about 'delivering justice' while describing a bomb that killed a child (and a bad guy or two) makes me ill. No doubt somebody will now seek to 'deliver justice' for the child, who did not deserve to die.

quote:

---

Cue the child-killing apologists who will say 'Zarqawi killed kids first' - maybe, but the US killed a kid today, and then gloated about it. We know Zarqawi is a monster, why are we seeking moral equivalency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khimia:

The tragic death of this child is no reason to gloat but Zarqawi should be condemned for the blood thirsty murderer he was and and also for causing this child to be placed in harms way.

---

There we go, first post. The child wasn't placed in 'harms way', 'harms way' came to the child in the form of a rational adult acting on the orders of other rational adults. They decided to kill the child, and that the death of the child was worth it in order to kill Zarqawi. And yet they think of themselves as 'delivering justice'.

Zarqawi and every other blood thirsty murderer should be arrested and charged, hopefully without killing children in the process. I know Iraq is in chaos (thanks George!) which makes that impossible, but how does butchering children make the US or anyone else the good guys?

I'll say it again. I don't give a fuck if the child was tied to his backpack - how does killing children to 'deliver justice' make anyone the good guys?

The fact that Bush actually said the words 'delivered justice' when talking about killing Zarqawi (fine) and a child (not fine at all) makes me sick. The fucking pompous self important ass has the unmitigated gall to talk about justice while killing children who were 'in harms way'. Then you have the gall to pretend it's OK because the bad guy was close by.

I don't care how murderous someone might be, if he was holed up in Calgary and the police leveled a neighbourhood to kill him (and some others, including a child), they would be justifiably in deep shit. But for some reason it's OK for the 'good guys' to 'deliver justice' while butchering children in Iraq or elsewhere.

The fact Bush, and Zarqawi, have never been struck by lightning are excellent proof that there is no God.

[ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi … who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

---

If the US knew where he was,why did they not utilise their vaunted special forces to take the house?

Sound familiar?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
What place?

On CBC today I heard the truth not once but twice. Once from Robert Fisk, once from Eric Margolis.

That Zarqawi was a Jordanian criminal who tried to ride on Bin Laden's coattails, proclaimed himself leader of the non-existant group "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," tried to start a civil war against the Shias, and tried to make a name for himself with atrocities. All of which so pissed off both Bin Laden and the mainstream resistance groups in Iraq that they disowned him. They will be cheering his death, since he was a hindrance to them.

And the CBC anchors nodded soberly and asked "and what impact will his death have for the future of the resistance forces?" Nobody listens.

---

quote:

---

EVIL ZARQAWI BLOWN TO HELL

IRAQ'S TOP TERRORIST KILLED AS U.S. JETS BOMB HIS HIDEOUT

By ANDY SOLTIS
9 June 2006

Bush said the death of the bloody mastermind of countless suicide bombings and beheadings is "a severe blow to al Qaeda."

But the terrorist group vowed to continue its jihad.

"The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme," said a message on an al Qaeda-linked Web site.

Warning: Objectionable site. New York Post

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
Greg Palast

---

quote:

---

"Zarqawi. Zarqawi. Zarqawi. That's all we hear about. Zarqawi was not here. This home belonged to displaced people," said a village resident, holding up a teddy bear and a child's knapsack buried in the destruction.

---

Reuters

[ 09 June 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I was going to suggest, based on the quote above, that their might be some overlap between your story and this NYPost cover - thoughts?

The NYPost cover is a photograph of Zarqawi's head, complete and intact. Seems a bit odd, given the bombing details released by the US military.

[ 09 June 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Disbelief in Iraqi hamlet where Zarqawi was killed
Thu Jun 8, 2006 9:36am ET

By Hilmy Kamal
Reuters

"I don't know anything about Abu Musab or anyone else being here," said a teenager who declined to give his name, inspecting blankets amid crushed concrete.

"The Americans have a habit of bombing places and then claiming Zarqawi or others were there."

---

Google is an utterly amazing resource. Really.

edited to add a sentence in the quote. Google is amazing. Me? Meh.

[ 09 June 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

If the US knew where he was,why did they not utilise their vaunted special forces to take the house?

---

quote:

---

As Iraq yesterday braced itself for more violence following the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the country's deputy prime minister warned that the sectarian divisions running deep in the country also permeated the government.

Salam Zobai, a Sunni leader and one of the two deputies to Shia prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, told the Financial Times that Zarqawi was just "one of the sources of violence" in Iraq.

---

Splits in Iraq society permeate the government

However, it seems that Zarqawi survived the initial blast!

quote:

---

U.S. officials have altered their account of the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, saying he was alive and partly conscious after bombs destroyed his hideout, and an Iraqi man raised fresh questions Saturday about the events surrounding the end of Iraq's most-wanted militant.

The man, who lived near the scene of the bombing, claimed in an interview with AP Television News to have seen U.S. soldiers beating an injured man resembling al-Zarqawi until blood flowed from the man's nose.

When asked about the man's allegations, military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said he would check. In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Jeffrey Gordon said Saturday he was unaware of the claim.

The Iraqi, identified as Mohammed Ahmed, claimed that residents put the man in an ambulance before U.S. forces arrived. The American military team then pulled the man from the ambulance and beat him, Ahmed said. He gave a similar account to The Washington Post.

---

Here's another good article on the grisly congratulatory exultation over the "elimination".

And details of the blast:

quote:

---

The airstrike killed two other men and three women who were in the house, but only al-Zarqawi and his spiritual adviser have been positively identified, he said.

From a helicopter hovering above, a wide swath of destruction could be seen. The debris around the site included a women's slip and other pieces of clothing. Charred dresses, torn blankets, thin sponge mattresses and pillows were in the crater itself.

The debris of concrete blocks and twisted metal reinforcement bars included a pillow with a floral pattern, sandals and a foam mattress with the covering torn off. A cooling unit and part of a washing machine also were in the area...

Caldwell also said experts told him it is not unheard of for people to survive a blast of that magnitude. He said he did not know if al-Zarqawi was inside or outside the house when the bombs struck.

"Well, what we had found, as with anything, first reports are not always fully accurate as we continue the debriefings. But we were not aware yesterday that, in fact, Zarqawi was alive when U.S. forces arrived on the site," Caldwell said.

---

[ 10 June 2006: Message edited by: ceti ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Under international humanitarian law and accepted "rules of engagement", Zarqawi is at fault for sheltering with non-combatants.

---

Right. I see. So he would be "not at fault" only if running around (preferrably naked) in circles in a desert, over a big painted bullseye, while carrying a flashing arrow pointing at the top of his head. Because otherwise the very definition of an "insurgent" is a dude hiding in an urban jungle to emerge only to carry out hit and run guerilla attacks.

Incidently, if one is to follow your "reasoning", every resistance group in WWII was also at fault for the Germans executing the whole village or a city block where they were suspected to be hiding, thus rendering the SS "blameless", no?

quote:

---

If a legitimate military target is "shielded" by civilians, you are still allowed to strike at the target with appropriate force.

---

See above. This should get all the still surviving Waffen-SS and Gestapo members in a cheerful mood. After all they always deemed their force "appropriate". It is simply a small difference of opinion as to what was "appropriate", no? I mean they did have to get rid of those partisans somehow and since the villagers would not cooperate, and having no other means of distinguishing who is who, killing all men over 12 was an "appropriate" method, as far as they were concerned!

quote:

---

A directed bomb as was used in this case is not inappropriate.

---

Specially if directed (500lb times two = 1000lb of high explosives) into a cluster of closely groupped houses, in order to get two men. What a marvel of humane military planning, this!

quote:

---

(A long time ago I had to teach this stuff to active combatants in a conflict abroad.)

---

I think I've got a picture of you from that assignment.

[ 10 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Ali Abbas, 25, a labourer, had just got home on Wednesday when, shortly after 6pm, the first of two huge blasts shook his house. He was only 300 yards from where the F-16 aircraft dropped two 500lb laser-guided bombs.

“It was so close I thought my uncle’s house next door had been attacked,” he said.

In the calm that followed, Abbas rushed out to help. He found his uncle unharmed, but as they looked across the fence they saw that the neighbouring house on the edge of a date palm grove was a smouldering wreck.

“We ran to it and started to look around for anything, but it had all been reduced to rubble,” he said. “We saw the bodies of two women that had been flung away from the blast. Both were dead. Another body was totally destroyed and in pieces, and then we heard a moan coming from another part of the house.”

They raced to where the sound was coming from. “We found the body of a big man, middle-aged. There was life in him still. It took seven of us to move him from within the rubble and carry him out about 100 metres. He had a black dishdasha [robe]. His hair was longish and his beard soft black. He just moaned over and over again. He had an injury to the back of his head.”

As they dragged the wounded man from the ruins of the house, an ambulance and Iraqi forces turned up, taking the total number of people at the scene to about 14. The men had barely finished placing him in the ambulance when seven US helicopters landed by the house and four Humvees rumbled through the dust.

“They were shouting and screaming and in a very tense and agitated mood,” said Abbas. “They lined us up in a ditch and told us to turn our faces. We thought they were going to execute us. I started reciting koranic verses to myself.” The soldiers then took the wounded man from the back of the ambulance, placing his stretcher on the ground.

“The Americans tore his dishdasha and they kept on asking him through an interpreter, ‘What is your name, what is your name?’,” said Abbas. “They were tearing his dishdasha, not to wrap his head with it as they did later but because they were afraid he might be wearing a suicide belt. They kept shouting, ‘Keep your distance, he may be wearing a suicide belt’.”

He was not. “Under the dishdasha he was wearing only knee-length white undershorts,” said Abbas.

Once the soldiers had established the man was not a threat, they started to kick him in the chest, said Abbas and an Iraqi policeman also there. “They kept kicking him, shouting, ‘What’s your name?’, but the man only moaned and said nothing,” said Abbas.

As the small crowd of Iraqis looked on, the wounded man grew paler and blood oozed from his mouth and nose. It took about a quarter of an hour for him to die from the time when he was removed from the ambulance, Abbas estimated.

Abbas and other witnesses say the Americans then brought out black bodybags before taking the remains of all the dead away in a helicopter. Troops from the Humvees then rounded up the locals.

Abbas said: “A commander spoke to us all together and told us, ‘We know you have nothing to do with this and that you came to the scene to help your neighbours, but these people were terrorists’.

“When [further one-to-one questioning] was over they took us a distance from the house. They placed five detonations around the house and asked us to open our mouths and close our ears. They then blew up what remained of the rubble house.”
The next day Abbas saw pictures of the dead Zarqawi on television, his face swollen, cheeks bruised, eyes closed, with a neatly trimmed beard and moustache. There were streaks of blood beneath his skull. He was sure it was the same man.

---

If a target is sheltering in a populated area, that populated area as a whole cannot be taken as a legitimate target, because this would be indiscriminate as well as disproportionate. In this case, the target was sheltering in a relatively isolated structure that was targeted by means that would not have been indiscriminate, although they may have been so in a city, for example. You can argue about whether the bombs were "proportional" but given that any attempt to strike the structure the target was in would likely have resulted in those same civilian casualties, I don't see there would be a difference that makes a difference from the point of view of IHL.

The example of reprisal killings by Nazis is not analogous because this is indiscriminate, deliberate, and cannot be considered "incidental". It represents a clear targeting of the civilian population, which is forbidden. Further, it is clearly disproportionate. On any number of grounds it can be ruled a violation of IHL.

To make precise what I said earlier: the key thing with civilians as shields is if they are being coerced into that role, they cannot be targeted. If they are voluntarily sheltering and abetting a combatant, they may be considered combatants themselves under IHL and can be targeted. But in any case a certain amount of incidental civilian casualties is "allowed" under the "rules of engagement" if the targeting is not indiscriminate, disproportionate, etc. In this case, it seems plausible, given what we have been told, that this was a "safe house" and therefore those sheltering them didn't have any particular civilian immunity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
So if you are sitting with a group of people having tea, then you are fair game as is everyone in the area? What a strange concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:

If a target is sheltering in a populated area, that populated area as a whole cannot be taken as a legitimate target, because this would be indiscriminate as well as disproportionate.

---

As opposed to dropping 1000lb of explosives on it, which is "discriminate and proportionate" to kill two men. Phew, you had me going there for a while, how could I not see this obvious difference!

quote:

---

In this case, the target was sheltering in a relatively isolated structure

---

Isolated as defined by "3 feet away from the next one" or some such.

quote:

---

that was targeted by means that would not have been indiscriminate

---

I.e. the surgicical, scalpel-like precision of successive 500lb chunks of high explosives, traveling at high velocity, launched from 16000 feet.

quote:

---

although they may have been so in a city, for example.

---

Which was where the building was.

quote:

---

You can argue about whether the bombs were "proportional"

---

You think?

quote:

---

but given that any attempt to strike the structure the target was in would likely have resulted in those same civilian casualties, I don't see there would be a difference that makes a difference from the point of view of IHL.

---

Really? You mean an attempt to capture 2 men with a group of those vaunted "special forces" would result in massive carnage of innoccents all around? I guess so, given that Zarqawi was a psychic-power wielding X-man mutant, capable of slaying 100s of men with his lazer gaze, no?

quote:

---

The example of reprisal killings

---

Who is talking about "reprisal"? They were merely applying an "optimal search method".

quote:

---

by Nazis is not analogous because this is indiscriminate, deliberate, and cannot be considered "incidental".

---

Neither can be indiscriminate, deliberate attempt to disregard civilians in vicious lust to get their oponent at any cost considered "incidental" as far as US forces were concerned. This is by the way a recurring pattern in Iraq, very much as it was for Waffen-SS.

quote:

---

It represents a clear targeting of the civilian population, which is forbidden.

---

Which is precisely the case with Zarqawi. The US forces simply decided that such civilian casualties were insignifcant when contrasted with the opportunity to make a prize kill.

quote:

---

Further, it is clearly disproportionate.

---

As are 1000lb of high explosives to get two men.

quote:

---

On any number of grounds it can be ruled a violation of IHL.

---

Ergo the US is in clear violation, repeatedly.

quote:

---

To make precise what I said earlier: the key thing with civilians as shields is if they are being coerced into that role, they cannot be targeted. If they are voluntarily sheltering and abetting a combatant, they may be considered combatants themselves under IHL and can be targeted.

---

I get it! The toddler volunteered! That is your logic!

quote:

---

But in any case a certain amount of incidental civilian casualties is "allowed" under the "rules of engagement" if the targeting is not indiscriminate, disproportionate, etc.

---

Or, in the immortal words of the Waffen-SS commander: "They are all against us and support those partisan swine!". Which happened to be true too.

quote:

---

In this case, it seems plausible, given what we have been told, that this was a "safe house" and therefore those sheltering them didn't have any particular civilian immunity.

---

Particularly the conspiring, underhanded, sneaky, insurgency-sustaining toddlers.

quote:

---

I didn't make these rules. But those are the rules of war.

---

No, those are the "rules" as seen by men like you, who would not be out of place seen having fun applying that Panzer mounted machine gun to those damn insolent Slavs.

[ 10 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:

No, those are the "rules" as seen by men like you, who would not be out of place seen having fun applying that Panzer mounted machine gun to those damn insolent Slavs.

[ 10 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

---

Don't work too hard to live up to your screen name now.

quote:

---

Complaint sent to the moderators.

---

And one more thing:

quote:

---

but given that any attempt to strike the structure the target was in would likely have resulted in those same civilian casualties, I don't see there would be a difference that makes a difference from the point of view of IHL.

---

What do you think would have happened when the house was surrounded and a demand was made to "let women and children go" to Zarqawi? Do you think he would want to have his "martyr" image sullied by hiding behind skirts? Or would have rather go out in a macho blaze of guns after letting them go? Specially if a TV crew was around.

[ 10 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

The prohibition includes attacks launched indiscriminately. In particular these are attacks which are not directed or which cannot be directed, because of the methods or means of combat employed, at a military objective. Also considered as indiscriminate are attacks which treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian property. The same applies to attacks which cause incidental civilian losses and damage excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.[P. I, 49, 51, 52]

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians must not be used to try to shield military objectives from attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations.

---

Protection of civilian persons and populations in time of war

However, this far from exausts the law on this issue. For more, you can browse these two links and some of the other links at the ICRC:

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList84/44B4EFB1C5534D4EC1257026002D1BA3

This is an article (therefore not an official interpretation) on the use of "precision" weapons and its implications for IHL:

Although if rasmus is correct, then what we are seeing every day in Iraq is legit, whereas IEDs that kill lots of bystanders are ok too. Doesn't say much for international law, but then again, war is a ghastly business.

quote:

---

No, those are the "rules" as seen by men like you, who would not be out of place seen having fun applying that Panzer mounted machine gun to those damn insolent Slavs.

---

And then you follow it up with this:

quote:

---

I am shaking in my boots that someone who advocates murder of children in order to "get the bad guys" finds my posts offensive and has decided to complain to the modrators. Really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
I think there maybe an honest misunderstanding here I-M. You seem to be on the humanitarian side of this, while Rasmus is just recounting which international laws he believes now apply. I don't think he's Supporting it himself. I'd be very surprised if he was.

---

I do not believe so. Or at least he does not appear in any way to be in any kind of disgareement with these "laws". Bear in mind that these "laws" were made by those who find killing and mayhem to be unavoidable and in the long term acceptable and eventually a desirable thing (if it applies to who they see as the "bad guys"). The problem with this attitude is that it is really nothing more then a dishonest fig-leaf intended to cover the actions of all kinds of subhuman thugs with a thin veneer of "legality".

If these "laws" were to stand unchallenged and the attitudes within them accepted, then one pretty much will find a way to "rationalize" any kind of carnage, no matter how insane, just as wholesale leveling of cities was found to be "acceptable" to the Allied Command in WWII as was the use of nuclear weapons by the US.

I merely provided examples of such well known carnage, executed by well known individuals, and how these insane "laws" could be made to stretch and bend to cover their actions.

It is one thing to say that brain-dead "laws", made up by legal hacks with questionable agendas were concocted in order to cover the asses of generals and then to quote them in that context, and quite another to stand by these "laws" as if they were the moral code of humanity. And from such a stance one can easily draw a conclusion that the person who finds these "laws" to be useful and adequate is also of compatible mindset with those who would seek to create such legalistic excuses for their inhuman actions.

But Rasmus can always prove me wrong and instead of elaborately excusing the actions of the US forces, simply state that they were immoral.

Nothing could be simpler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
]Well, Ignoramus Maximus, first you post this completely unacceptable thing to rasmus:

---

Well Michelle, my reasoning is rather straightforward: if Rasmus took such great pains to excuse the actions of a military he is sympathetic with, he cannot complain too much when one simply extends his own reasoning to some other military of long ago to demonstrate his folly. And then when he persists, even when it becomes obvious that the parallels are clear and unavoidable, it is only natural to suspect that he harbours strangely familiar attitudes towards warfare and combat in general.

quote:

---

This is your first and last warning. If I see anything like this coming from you again, you'll be finding another forum to post on. It ends here, or your babble account ends here.

---

Well Michelle, you are the moderator of Babble and thus you speak for it. If you find it offensive that I chastise those who would seek to excuse carnage and mayhem via some convoluted legal mumbo-jumbo, including that of murder of children, because I do so in a rather blunt way, then who am I to argue. I am sure there will be enough people left here to conduct their conversations in a manner appropriate for a Victorian tea-party after I am gone.

Keep in mind however that the number of the begloved, corsetted, fruit decorated hat wearers seems to be dwindling precipitously here. And the Internet is far and wide.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:
Keep in mind however that the number of the begloved, corsetted, fruit decorated hat wearers seems to be dwindling precipitously here. And the Internet is far and wide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
In general, Ignoramus, if you begin by slandering and smearing someone, then end by demanding that they prove your smear wrong, you are unlikely to get compliance. Nor would compliance in such a case be wise or credible, arising as it does out of manipulation. My record on this site, which is far longer than yours, speaks for itself. Yet you seem either unaware of that context, or not to have factored it in.

I have already explained elsewhere my position on this war, and on war in general. I am not going to do so here on your demand to put to rest your feverish, histrionic accusations.

---

I see. Well for your information, my record on the Internet is far longer then yours, since I was on it since before the HTTP protocol was around.

And which is equally as useless a piece of information to conducting any kind of discussion on any medium as your own inane assertion.

Go forth and search the old Gopher sites if you can find them. Check out the USENET archives from 1985 where I posted under aliases which even I have since long forgotten about. Go peruse my 1500+ posts on Slashdot. Since the "I was here before you, nyeh, nyeh. My toy train is longer then yours" type of argument seems to be your last defense.

You tell me to laboriously search the bowels of Babble for unspecified "record" of someone's position, clearly with the intention of silencing the oposing view, as such a search would likely take days if not weeks when started in the absence of any sort of reference point other then just the poster's name. In case you wonder, I have seen this very trick long before there was Babble and you on it.

Reasonable people of course will notice that all that was required of you to decisively destroy all of my arguments was an exceedingly straightforward statement: "the actions of the US forces were immoral".

It is that simple.

Yet somehow it is well beneath you to do so.

Ostensibly because it was the loathsome Ignoramus Maximus who managed to corner you into this and he refuses to let go of you from his clutches no matter how industriously you wiggle and squirm.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:
Ostensibly because it was the loathsome Ignoramus Maximus who managed to corner you into this and he refuses to let go of you from his clutches no matter how industriously you wiggle and squirm.

---

Oh, man. IM, you're just going from strength to strength.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:

I see. Well for your information, my record on the Internet is far longer then yours, since I was on it since before the HTTP protocol was around.

[Edited to remove most rambling, and Hollywoodesque posturing]

Ostensibly because it was the loathsome Ignoramus Maximus who managed to corner you into this and he refuses to let go of you from his clutches no matter how industriously you wiggle and squirm.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

---

You are an idiot.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

You are an idiot.

---

Everyone seems to be getting into the spirit! As far as well reasoned, immaculately documented, cross referenced and in depth analysis, this one is a clear winner.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
This is in the finest traditions of 1930s/1940s pulp SF, the kind of publication with octopuses and (usually) semi-clad women on the cover. Well done!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
"Immaticulously" is now my new favourite word.

---

quote:

---

I see. Well for your information, my record on the Internet is far longer then yours, since I was on it since before the HTTP protocol was around.

---

So was I. In the meantime, I learned a modicum of self-control. You should try it sometime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:

So was I. In the meantime, I learned a modicum of self-control. You should try it sometime.

And with this post, I say "over and out" to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by clandestiny:
the US doesn't adhere to Geneva Convention anyway (see 'rendition') plus the iraq war is illegal, by any but biker standards, and nuke powers shouldn't be dropping 500 pound bombs on 3rd world country civilian neighborhoods, no matter what. But if that's ok, then 911 was ok. and london/madrid was ok. and hiroshima is ok. and auschwitz.....the MAN make the rules, after all....

---

That is why I find all this inane, obfuscating talk of "legality" so infuriating. And that is also why a much simpler and more basic, yet much harder to evade criterion has to be obviously applied: basic decency and morality.

Then things get much more clear: All wars, save those out of unequivocal, beyond-any-doubt, necessity of defense from direct aggression are immoral by definition. And even those that remain can only be deemed a necessary evil if one is to follow a strict and exception-free code of conduct. Part of which states that civilians, especially children and infirm are never an acceptable target, "collateral" or otherwise, no matter what the other side is doing.

The rest flows from there.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:

Everyone seems to be getting into the spirit! As far as well reasoned, immaculately documented, cross referenced and in depth analysis, this one is a clear winner.

[ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

---

Your posturing for effect had none of the aspects of in depth analysis, so in fact there was nothing to respond to with in depthe analysis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Your posturing for effect had none of the aspects of in depth analysis, so in fact there was nothing to respond to with in depthe analysis.

---

That is merely your opinion and without your bothering to point out exactly where the analysis was in your view lacking, one has no choice but to dismiss it out of hand.

quote:

---

It was all posturing. I can posture too. So what?

---

Again, unlike you, I have attempted to present my reasoning and then to defend it when questioned.

quote:

---

Ostensibly because it was the loathsome Ignoramus Maximus who managed to corner you into this and he refuses to let go of you from his clutches no matter how industriously you wiggle and squirm.

---

Anyways, if things look really bad for the fall mid-term elections (meaning Democrats look like they'll win the house, overcoming all the voting chicanery going on right now), I think they might pull Osama out of their proverbial rabbit hat, but otherwise they will keep him in reserve for the next presidential election, probably going to fetch him a couple of months before hand.

[ 12 June 2006: Message edited by: ceti ]