This story is a bit moronic. If Bill Gates died, would his replacement be as qualified...no. Is the article suggesting that we should let this mastermind live to continue his terrorist acts? Well isn't that intelligent!

Sorry, I am a middle of the road person and NOT a GW supporter, but this article stinks of politics. We got the guy. Good for us. Let them make him a saint. Who cares. His brains aren't working anymore. Good for us.

Its them or us.

For those, who did think that this news is of any progress, you are wrong. This news is just one more method politicaly used, to make billions believe that something good was achieved. In my mind, this at the most helps the ever lowering job approval for George and Tony, at the very best. The geo-political sense dominated by oil based control on every human involved, will not only prove to be a long term error, but also a sad mistake that we, the human race would be reading history pages which have no reality check on our past present and future.

The war on terrorism isa long and time consuming process.Eliminating a one face doesn't mean that its going to win a war.You kill a one zarkawi there are 10 in line to take his place.So keep pressure on them and try to make local population a partner in war against terrorism

As usual, the article sites every left wing source known in an effort to marginalize a very significant event. Pres. Bush and the US military can't win.

If we didn't kill him, the left would march to the drumbeat of how incompitent the gov't is because he's still at large. When we do kill him, they think of every reason why it's no big deal, and even suggest that it could be a bad thing to have this Islamo-fascist butcher dead.

Liberalism never ceases to amaze me in its utter madness.

Who will take a bet that the 25 million end up in Al Qaeda's coffers somehow?

I would make Iraq seem incharge on this one.The pictures could have been leaked to the media rather than generals display it.In the same light if terrorists who believe the have a genuine cause show decapitations the same people who show thier leader dead will cry out loud

This is an interesting review of the various political possibilities that could progress from Zarqawi's death. Hopefully it will stem the tide of non-Iraqi suicide bombers, but all outcomes seem open at this point. At least we can breathe a sigh of relief that we've cut the head from at least one body of insurgents.
(Shouldn't the headline read: "Zarqawi's Death -- Just WhoM Does It Help?" That one slipped past the copy editors.)

There is no question about who has won a victory. Has the media lost a friend? That is the question.

The extremeties of the media, both conservative and liberal, are old news. Each side tells the same story but with a spin that is politically expedient to them. Do not associate activist journalism with the true core of ideology that they seek to cater to. Liberals are good, well-intentioned people just the same as Conservatives are. To say things like "Liberalism never ceases to amaze me in its utter madness" is to succumb to the same kind of partisan divisiveness that has erupted to such tragic effect in Iraq.

As to whether Al-Zarqawi's death will bear sweet or bitter fruit is a matter of such complexity that even the oracle of delphi would be hard-pressed to give a good answer. Did he deserve death for his actions? Personally I think so, but the article isn't questioning that, the article is pointing out that the consequences of his death could well be worse than the consequences of his continued life. Certainly the fact of his death hasn't turned Iraq overnight into the land of milk & honey.

People, Look before you leap, and for God's sake, THINK before you open that big yapper. Regurgitated propaganda does noone any good.

He's dead, oh man that feels good. He can' t breath anymore of my air. Enloy hell infidel. You're beliefs suck, you are a dead thing, you lose, bye now empty skin. The rest will join you soon. Nuke them all and let the Real God sort them out. You lose trashballs.

Mao Tse Tung, asked what was the impact of the French Revolution of 1789, replied "too soon to tell." Similarly, Zarqawi's death may or may not mean anything in the short or long run. But right now, it's an accomplishment for the good guys. For Pete's sake, let's let the events show us what it means, but be happy for the good guys. We deserve a little celebration.

Zarqawi's death will have a ripple effect for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Will there be internal fighting among followers for the next Zarqawi? The Bill Gate analogy is ludicrous. A better analagy would be what happens when a mafia leader dies?

Atleast we always had a goal, symbolic or otherwise, of removing Zarqawi & I am glad we achieved that. We are also fighting local insurgents, who is the 'Zarqawi' of that group?

Brian Whittekaer seems to have missed the point, according the the section you quoted - Zarqawi targetted Shia's in Iraq and tried to cause a civil war between Sunni's and Shia's (which to some extend he succeeded). Just a few days before his death he declared that the Hizballah (the Shia military organization in Lebannon) should be disbanded because it doesn't allow anyone but it to get close to the border with Israel.

I admit that I don't follow the news closely so there is a good chance I'm missing a lot here too, though.

Tho needed to disrupt any additonal harm caused by this mans influence, the killing of another human has been acheived. The cause he died for, the cause many of our people have died for, and will continue to, is to finally convince the rest of us that the madness of war is caused by the shortsightedness of those in power. No matter where they rule from, we all share the same small globe, floating helplessly in an enormous vacccume with no way off and no where else to go. Any chance we could all be brave enough to face a change in the rules and actually try to address the problems of unequal distribution of resources, instead of generating another population of fanatics that only live to die? How many of our future generations must we send away to slaughter?

Roast in Hell Zarqawi you are what you deserve to be worm munchies.I have never been so Happy to hear that someone is Taken a dirt nap forever.Say I bet its hot where your at now.I hope the Ghosts of the Americans you beheaded,are ripping you to pieces.May all evil satanic sons of hell end up dead.

Your headline "Just who does it help" is a clear reflection of the Washington Post's and the majority of the other left slanted liberal media's agenda. CAN YOU BE SERIOUS WITH A HEADLINE LIKE THAT? This death will not stop what is going on but to take out the main figurehead of the terrorism group who himself is responsible for beheading many westerners is A VERY MONUMENTAL ACHIEVEMENT! Of course you will never report the good stories that you could balance out all of your liberal slants and BUSH bias. You won't report all of the accomplishments of our military and other coalition forces. The American public is on to your agenda by the very nature of your reporting, if you want to call it that. I can't believe all of the media attention that surrounded the injuries to Kimberly Dozier and her return to the states. You act like she made a real sacrifice and is a hero. It is not the reporter or media that are hero's it is the soldier who has sacrificed to fight for the freedoms that give the media the rights that they enjoy. And it seems that the enjoyment is real for reporters that just punch our leadership and the efforts of our brave soldiers in the eye. I suppose it is Bush's fault that she was injured. What a load of manure!

Ding Dong Zarqawi's dead, take that robe off your head.

What I wish someone in the news profession would address is the fact that SIX other al Qaida in Iraq muck-a-mucks (including, supposedly, the Zarqawi 'spiritual advisor') were also killed in the strike.

Can we find out who they were and if they were really important? Or were they Zarqawi's driver, gardener, accountant, etc.?

C. Davie

Only people who live in a bubble believe Zarqawi death will change anything. Possibly it will change the focus to killing the occupiers which is what Iraqis support. Did anyone ever consider that Zarqawi was given up by those of lower rank so that their efforts could be refocused on the occupiers. Keep living in your dream world. America is the problem in Iraq, not the solution. People are treating this like a game. I guess I shall do like everyone else and buy another "Support the Troops" ribbon to put on the back of my vehicle along with purchasing a pair of cheerleader pom-pom and mini-skirt.

Who does this help? The next person he would have beheaded.

Good riddance.

The liberals are sad. They will miss Zarqawi. What a shame. They should have dropped ten bombs instead of 2.

Of course, we are all better off without him around. May he enjoy his 70 virgins!!!

"incompitent" - ha ha ha!

I highly recommend the movie The Battle of Algiers to anyone who's feeling smug that one paunchy old terrorist got killed.

We've turned so many corners by now that we must be going in circles.

I wonder about commentary like that credited to 'Grant McFall' above...What's with someone who uses a rhetorical question as a 'headline' to provoke discussion (ala that cited), to launch into a diatribe about the article's "left-leaning bias".

As for Dozier's injury (which McFall mentions) being "Bush's fault", surely McFall is smart enough to figure out that actually everything that stems from the 'war in Iraq' is, indeed, Bush's fault. Likewise, any good (if ever any comes) from the 'war' will be to Bush's credit.

C. Davie

World

JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER.

John 3:16

If Bill Gates died or more likely retired, he already has a very competent successor. Z likely has some sort of succession planning, but how well it works, whether there will be a power struggle is unclear.

So this is good news, but most of us have seen lots of turning points before, so we should be hopeful but wary.

One is reminded of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Two men will rise to fill his place.

Bombing will achieve nothing except to inflame the situation further.

I see this two ways. First, the death of Abu Musab al- will have little short term impact. There are just too many willing martyrs in a hurry to get to heaven! But the long term implications may be very significant? We tend to underestimate the compelling effect of charismatic visionary leaders, especially when they are viewed as evil personages. We might not like to think of the Devil, Ganges Kahn, Hitler or al- Zarqawi as effective and capable leaders, but they were. The death of Ganges Kahn had profound impact for Europe and Asia. And certainly an early demise of Adolph would have changed the course of WWII. So just maybe, al-Zarqawi's death will have profound effect over the long term on the course of events not only in Iraq, but the Middle East as well? Or was he just getting a lot of unjustified credit for the momentum of this evil Jihad? On the whole, his passing is a good thing. How important it is will have to balanced with the effect of other many other variables. More allegations of "Mai Lai" type incidents would overshadow the importance of al-Zarqawi departure from this earth. Now if the CIA could find a way to track down and kill the Devil himself....well wouldn't this be a wonderful world!

Yes, C. Davie, as I mentioned if there is any good that comes from the war and there is a lot that the military does that is not exactly defined as war, like building hospitals, elevating the status of women, getting people to the poles to vote including women, building schools and infrastructure. etc., it will never be reported by 99% of the media. So, we will never know the good that is a result of our efforts in Iraq because the media hates an individual, Bush, so much that they prefer that the US lose in our efforts. Sorry that you are not informed enough or look at other sources to understand that just because it is called "WAR" doesn't mean that we are not helping people.

So how about Osama - you know the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks and who finances al Qaeda?

Or is he too close to the Bush family to capture. Heck, he only killed 3.000 Americans!

I see the influences of organized religion to be more powerful than the influences of patriotism or nationlism. It can cross geographical lines with ease, and can easily prevent any population within any country from joining as one. In this example, it will be up to the general population of Iraq to rise above that and work together as a country. If they do, the criminals will lose support and move to more fertile ground by attrition in short order. "If".

Why does the media continue to play this infantile game that is clearly recognized by the majority of Americans?

The capture of this one guy not only accomplishes nothing, it is much worse. Killing this guy would have created revenge against our country no matter what. It is much worse though. Because the media built this idiot up into a high profile danger, now there are probably thousands of others out there who will be inspired by his death. The media is clearly part of the problem. They sheepishly accept anything our military says is true. Shame on them for participating in a propaganda campaign.

It took years for zar to build his reputation and following. His name was like magic to some fanatics and his name alone no doubt was
a great recruting tool.He will be replaced but it takes time and effort.Its a win for the good guys in the short and medium term. Long term ?, who knows.

It is wrong to think of this war in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". All the bombing, killing and torture should stop on all sides of this war. Since we live in this country, guess what side we have some influence over?

Using killing and violence is never a win or a victory. It is always immoral. It is particularly immoral when, you unjustifiably invade a country to do it(which is in itself illegal).

We are continuing to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine how many people are being killed so we could "win".

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was obviously a formidable enemy. Who will benefit from his death? I see two sets of beneficiaries...

1. First, those whose job rating on Iraq is particularly low, at this time. They will of course spin this news and entertain the media ad nauseam, trying to convince us that we should consider this a "major turning point" in the occupation of Iraq. For a few days at least, less people will therefore hear about the outstanding job accomplished by the troops in Guantanamo, in Fallujah, Samara, Haditha and in all those other cities, across Iraq, that have sadly become too numerous to be listed here.

But we have gotten used, by now, to hearing of those "major turning points". As a matter of fact, bringing down Saddam Hussein's statue, killing his two sons, taking him into custody, staging his trial, organizing elections in Iraq, helping to put in place a governement acceptable to the US, etc. have all been presented already as "major turning points"... that have led to where the US now stands, as representative Murtha and others have pointed out. So the ratings may very well remain painfully low, once some general finally decides to store al-Zarqawi's elegantly framed picture in his wardrobe.

2. The second set of beneficiaries is all of us. Let's remind ourselves that once it had become evident the American liberators would neither be greeted as such, nor be showered with flowers along Baghdad's Main Street (contrary to what had been predicted), soon afterwards al-Zarqawi was THE person held responsible, day after day, for the "foreign led" insurgency that was said to have ensued, as Donald Rumsfeld was keen to point out. That is when, with precious help from the media, al-Zarqawi's own enemies began to make him into nothing less than a mythical figure in world terrorism. Now that the man is dead (for good, this time, it is claimed!), we shall see, at last, to what extent the name "al-Zarqawi" was used (like "al-Qaeda") as an umbrella word, as it may very well have been, I'm afraid...

Indeed, if the myth were to be believed, the media would already have stressed that for all intents and purposes, this "foreign led" Iraqi insurgency was over, that the American administration should therefore declare victory immediately ("mission accomplished-2"!), and rapatriate all the troops of that great "coalition of the willing". But so far, I have not seen that much coherence and logics displayed in the analyses presented by the media. This is rather unfortunate. The al-Zarqawi myth would have given us the opportunity to conclude this latest episode of "Living in an Orwellian World" with such a happy ending!. Imagine, "...and they lived in a safer world ever after..."!

Grant McFall and status of women:
Just a quick note.Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular countries were women had equal rights as men,including right to vote.This has changed now that US army is holding the fort.
Get your facts , before you talk.

Zarqawi's death will have two effects:

1. Al Qaeda in Iraq will become a less powerful force

Whether or not it is true that the Americans used an insider to track down Zarqawi is irrelevant. The fact that they claim they had inside help will make all those involved in Al Qaeda in Iraq suspicious of each other. This will lead to much bloodletting inside Al Qaeda that will make it weaker.

2. The Iraqi insurgency will gain more legitimacy.

The indeginous Iraqi insurgency until now had had no definable political goals other than getting the US and its allies out of Iraq. While Zarqawi was alive, his primary and perhaps only objective was to start a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. It was his goal to turn such a civil war into a wider regional conflict that would radicalize and unite the Sunni Arabs under a single (his) banner. Zarqawi's use of terror against other (mostly Iraqi) insurgents had forced them to support this larger regional goal instead of their nationalist goals. This stunted political maturation of the Iraqi insurgency. With Zarqawi gone and slacking of the control of al Qaeda over the overall insurgency, the insurgency's nationalist elements have an opportunity to grow politically. With this political growth, the insurgency could make inroads beyond the wilderness of Anbar province and the Euphrates valley and turn itself into a national force. Short term this could be bad news for the Americans. Long term, this will allow the Americans to negotiate with the insurgents and address their political demands which is not such a bad thing.

So the Big Evil killed the little evil and is posing as "good". The big question now is who is going to kill the Big Evil we all suffer from.

Good analysis, Shervin! As someone who supports the War on Terror, but not the way it is being fought or the invasion of Iraq I welcome his death. It is just a tragic shame that one of the dead was a child (though the Americans can't really be blamed for it). It's clear that Al-Quaeda has been compromised by American Intelligence. More than one building was known about and watched and once Zarqawi was dead the others were raided.

A lot of Iraqis didn't like Zarqawi as he was seen as a foriegn interloper. The Shias certainly will welcome his death.

Zarqawi's death and the blunting of Al-Quaeda in Iraq (for now anyway) is a big step forward. In itself it isn't enough to move Iraq to stability, but it might be enough to pull it back from civil war.

Let's hope that the new Iraqi government can build on this. More important than Zarqawi's death was the filling of the two most important posts left in the Iraqi cabinet yesterday. With luck the investigations into alledged American war crimes won't derail the process and Britain and America can withdraw leaving a stable country in place.

I'll take a dead martyr over a live psychopath any day. Like the guy said "Who does it help?"...the next guy whose head the Z-man would have personally cut off.

I hope killing Zarqawi doesn't prove to be a huge strategic blunder.

I like the example used above of "killing Hitler earlier." You're right - if Hitler had died in 1938, it's possible that we wouldn't have had World War 2. If Hitler had died in 1942 - then Germany would have never invaded the Soviet Union and Europe would probably still entirely be under the domain of the Nazis. If Hitler had died in 1944, then the Nazis probably would have pulled back to Germany and reinforced their position and we would have had to fight twice as hard to get to Berlin.

So - yeah. Hitler dying might have been great, but then again it might not have been.

But Zarqawi hardly compares in the same list as Hitler. Zarqawi was incredibly ineffective. The Iraqi factions hated him because he indiscriminately slaughtered anyone. Zarqawi was only a "number one" because WE chose to consider him as the "number one." The Al Qaeda cells in Iraq are almost completely autonomous.

Unfortunately, now that Zarqawi is dead - we just freed up all the funding that Z recieved for some other "number one" to step in and take his place. Power abhors a vaccuum and I believe that whoever sucks up Z's funding will probably also change his tactics of indiscriminate killing - because indiscriminate killing is what led the Iraqis to turn in Zarqawi. Once the new Z changes the tactics, I think it will be easy for Al Qaeda in Iraq to organize other native insurgent factions into cohesive opposition force to the United States occupation. What we may be seeing today is the beginning of an Iraqi "Tet Offensive" a year or two from now.

I disagree with Shervin's analysis above because Shervin doesn't consider the new wild card in the situation - SOMEONE is going to replace Zarqawi. Yes, this may open the door for our side to talk with the Iraqi forces in the immediate future. However, Z's successor - if choosing to throw aside Z's tactics - will be far more persuasive in organizing the Iraqis against us than we can be in organzing these factions to support eachother.

The mainstream media's response to this story has been so predictable. They are scrambling over each other to try to diminish the importance of Zarqawi's killing. Have you ever seen these liberal hacks investigate any potential upside to bad news in Iraq? of course not.

The liberal media's goal is the same as Zarqawi's: demoralize the American people to force a withdrawl from Iraq.

Shame on liberal propogandists like Morely.

I guess the media would prefer him captured. This would give them and us much more TV entertainment. All that for a long period of time. Imagine; months of speculation where he is held, then negotiations with the iraqis about the place of trial, then a spectecular trial with juicy details of executions, crying relatives, political statements...and finally a spectacular execution.
And please do not forget all the media coverage if finally he ended up in Guatanamo, or if his friends were trying to liberate him with a spectacular hostage taking campaign. Wow.
The media should be furius that such a good business is lost forever...

If we accept as truth the defeatist, antiBoosh argument that the Z-man will undoubtly be replaced by an equally, if not more effective, leader of these poor, misunderstood freedom fighters, then I guess we have to accept as the inevitable truth that Boosh will also be replaced by an equally, if not more effective, leader here to carry out his war on terror, and the war in Iraq?

PressAgainstAmerica:

The US army is committing war crimes in Iraq.

There is nothing wrong with pressing for its withdrawal from the country it occupied illegally by force and the country it destroyed.

Do you think the US army is God?

I fully and openly condemn this army of violence and brutality that you seem to defend.

We shall not forget that the US army killed 2 million people in Vietnam. 2 million people, not to mention over 60,000 of their own, for nothing.

I do not buy into this excuse that soldiers are just following orders.

Soldiers are not children who are not able to make moral decisions. They are full grown up adults.

The Nazi soldiers were also just following orders. Hitler was not the one personally dropping bombs on cities, not the one driving millions of human beings into death camps to die like insects.

It was the Nazi soldier. I call it Nazi to mean that the German soldier believed in the Nazi cause, just like many US soldiers do believe in Bush's cause. It suffices to read testimonies from injured soldiers who are brought back to the US: many even maimed claim that they would do it again.

Few German soldiers did flee their army because those people had a conscience not a criminal order to kill other human beings.

The sooner the US army gets out of Iraq, the better.

Who bombed cities, destroyed bridges, power plants, destroyed communication networks, cut off electricity to hospitals with its sick patients who died slow deaths, destroyed water systems in cities, and finally who first terrorized children, women in their homes by bombing their cities?

It was and still is the US army following the orders of Bush.

You make it sound as if the current US government is some peaceful, humane government run by mother Teresas.

It is not. It is a violent government that has the blood of so many innocent people in its hands.

Karim, you need to drop the Nazi comparisons. They're patently false and regardless aren't gonna convince anyone who's not already firmly in your camp (and completely around the bend).

back to the thread topic - who knows what this means long term, but it can't be a bad thing to end the career of a mass murderer.

"Who bombed cities, destroyed bridges, power plants, destroyed communication networks, cut off electricity to hospitals with its sick patients who died slow deaths, destroyed water systems in cities, and finally who first terrorized children, women in their homes by bombing their cities?"

Al Queda in Iraq as I recall. Thats what this entire artical has been about, remember?

Well at least Bush didn't say "Now the mission is REALLY accomplished" Appears that he can learn, if only on a childlike level.

Karim:

The big difference between Zarqawi and the US military is that the US military does not kill civilians on purpose (Haditha incident not withstanding). More Iraqi civilians have died during the past four months because of the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence than they did during the American invasion by the Americans in 2003. By most estimates, during the invasion less than 4000 civilians died because of US military action. By contrast, I think since February about 1400 people have died per month mostly because of secterian killings and targeting of the civilians on purpose by Zarqawi. This does not include all those who have died because of malnutrition, lack of medical and sanitary facilities and general stress caused by the war and the insurgency. Whatever you want to say about the American military, but right now they are trying to build powerplants and are not blowing them up.

If you are worried about lack of electricity in Iraq killing patients in hospitals, then I think you ought to condemn the insurgency that right now kills power company workers and blows up oil pipes and kills tanker drivers that all serve to get the country electricity.

It amazes me that so many Muslims around the world are unwilling to look at their own traits that causes them to be oppressed by their own rulers and exploited by foreign countries.

Armed struggle alone is not going to get the US out of Iraq and even if it does, the Iraq that will be left after the US leaves is not going to be much of a country.

However, if the insurgency decides to take a political tack with clear and reasonable political aims, the US will be forced to leave.

Ghandi brought down the British Empire by being more humane and more generous than the British. Through that and not the armed struggle the Brits were forced to leave. If the Sunni insurgency demanded its rights through political action instead of blowing up innocent Shiite civilians I think it would make much greater inroads.

yes , the germans rolled into poland in 39, the japs did some massive killing in China,
rape of shanghai and nanking, Pacifism assumes violence stops if everyone puts down there guns. Thats a rose colored view of the world and unrealistic if anyone reads any history regarding the human animal. Great to turn the other cheek, but you have two cheeks
and eventually you run out of cheeks, then they go straight to knocking your head off.

Clarification on the Ghandi comment:

I was not advocating Ghandi's Pacifism as a model for all insurgencies, only for the Iraqi one. Based on military principles you have to attack your enemy's weakness not its strength. In purely military terms US has no weaknesses. However, US views itself as a moral and just country. If the Iraqi's could show to the Americans that the occupation is immoral and unjust then the withdrawl will happen. Given the current brutal nature of the insurgency, I don't think that the insurgents can claim the moral high ground.

Killing Zarqawi also killed the Arab myth that the cunning, daring Arabs can outwit the stronger "infidels." Now that their "Robin Hood" has been killed by the evil "Sheriff," they will have to reconcile themselves to the reality that they are a medieval, primitive society that can't compete with Western democracies.

It's great this supercruel monster is gone. As far as seeing progress in Iraq, that will depend on the new Prime Minister more than anyone. He may well be an improvement over the last one. We should be dangling the prize of early American withdrawal in front of the rebels in return for their entering the political process. Instead Bush has already announced we would be there for his entire second term! Does he want peace in Iraq? I hope so.

Many on the left are so consumed by their hatred of Bush that they have lost the ability to think.
The same people who now say that the killing of Zaraqawi is meaningless, or worse, that it will strengthen the insurgents, are the ones who have been screaming "why haven't we caught Osama."
When Osama is killed or caught these are the people who will lament that "we've created more hatred for America by humiliating millions throughout the world."
I won't question the motives of these people but it would be refreshing (actually amazing) if they ever could admit
that the United States ever did things that benifited the world.
I'm afraid their consuming hatred of Bush has become hatred of our country.

Has anybody else noticed that in forums like these, the people who look at the big picture, who present coherent "grey-area" analysis of the pros and cons of a particular issue, are also the people who know how to spell and use correct grammar?

In contrast, it seems like every single person who addresses an issue solely in terms of black and white--those who use terms like "evil", invoke God to back up their opinions, and generally claim they have a lock on absolute truth--spell like a 3rd grade special ed student?

My point is this: if you find yourself raging at the wrong-headed idiocy of conservatives, liberals, war-supporters, war-opposers, democrats, republicans, arabs, Americans, or whoever else, would you please take a moment to consider the fact that your one-track, absolutist worldview may be a prime indication that you are a complete moron?

Shervin, really, out of basic decency, the first you should preach non-violence and disarmament to are the US people and the US administration. Gandhi, always preached to himself first, and made sure he himself could first do as he would preach. That is why he was called Mahatma, the Great Soul.

"If the Iraqi's could show to the Americans that the occupation is immoral and unjust...". Really? So it is the victim's responsibility to show you, the agressor, that it is the victim? Can't you judge by yourself, like the vast majority of the world population has done? Human being to human being, let me be totally honest with you, as a human being your remarks make me sick.

Oogliemooglie??:

Your name says it all... I believe "you" are the moron

Karim and all the other "Obvious Anti-Bush, Anti-Military, Anti-America" people":

What are you doing here? We give you benefits you would never get in your country. You don't like us? Get out and stay out!!! And stop using our hard owned tax dollars for "your" benefit. Also, to the Americans that feel the way Karim does, shame on you!!(yes, including the liberal media).. I'm glad I will not be your Judge on Judgement Day. Maybe you need to go to the Mid-East too.

Gandhi was assasinated. So was John Lennon. So before you start singing "Give Peace a Chance" let's paraphrase Trotsky, they were not interested in violence, but violence was interested in them.

Zarqawi "lived by the sword and died by the sword." Many Sunnis are mourning their great "martyr" of Islam. They wanted war with the US, but they didn't realize they could lose. Their delusions have turned to dust.

Zarqawi "lived by the sword and died by the sword."... The United States of America also live by the sword, selling arm all over the world (how much worth, did you say...?), occupying countries, etc. I'd be careful with that one, Paul. I'd be very careful with that one, if I were you.

Note that the savage Israelis,as usual, used the media furor to bomb the Palstinians again...this time a young family of five (children 10,3, and 1) having a picnic on the beach. The Post, at least, had the guts to put it on the front page this time. Speaking of terrorists. Their daily fun, I guess.

Further clarification on "Pacifism"

I am not a pacifist. I view "Pacifism" as a tactical tool just like I view nuclear bombs or F/A-18's and M-16's. Every situation requires appropriate weapons and tactics. To fight a Saddam or a Hitler or a Khomeini or an Osama or a Zarqawi, you need guns and bombs and force. To fight a democracy that considers itself moral and just and happens to be a super power, guns don't work that well but pacifism does.

Ghandi succeeded with the British because he knew that guns won't get the British out of India but appeal to their sense of decency would. That approach would not have worked with either Hitler or Stalin.

I hope this cleared things up for Robert Rose. Decency or lack thereof has nothing to do with my statement. It is just a strategic assessment of the situation in Iraq.

Also Robert Rose, I hope you read some Sun Tzu. No Army is going to retreat unless it is destroyed or loses the will to fight. The US Army is too big and too strong to be destroyed through military action by the Iraqi insurgency. Therefore, that only leaves the question of the will to fight. The will of the US military to fight is derived from the will of the American people to support the military operations in Iraq. According to all the polls, while the war is unpopular in the US, the majority of the Americans still don't want to pull out of Iraq because they understand the rammifications of an unstable Iraq. As long as Americans believe this, there will be no pull out from Iraq.

If the goal of the Iraqi insurgency is to get the US out of Iraq, they have to attack the will of the American people to stay the course. In my opinion, current tactics of insurgency will not convince many that leaving Iraq at this time is a wise idea, since they only emphasize the instability of Iraq.

Orderly political action with clearly stated political objectives will work wonders against the Americans.

If these statements make you sick Robert Rose, so be it. Your moral outrage will do nothing to resolve the problems in Iraq. Regardless of whether or not you think the war was justified, the war has happened and added a lot to the misery of a lot of people. A pull out right will make a lot more people miserable. A civil war in Iraq with larger ramifications for the Middle East will only add to that misery and a pull out will accelerate the march to the said civil war. Therefore, regardless of how immoral you think the war is or has been, a pull out would be equally immoral if not more so.

My analysis is at least an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Your moral outrage sounds more like a self-rightous tantrum than any rational analysis of the situation.

The swaggering ignorance of frightened Americans is unending in its provision of comic relief.

The US does not live by the sword because we did not want war with the Arab nation. They wanted war with the US and that's why they attacked on 9/11.
Now they have the war they wanted, but "where is their victory?"

"The swaggering ignorance of frightened Americans is unending in its provision of comic relief."

It is called a democracy. Unless you are willing to mandate current events a poltical science testing before people could vote then you are left with this system.

"The US does not live by the sword because we did not want war with the Arab nation". That's debatable. What we did want is to give unstinting support to Israeli governments that wanted land in the West Bank more than they wanted peace. They wanted and still want more land than the 78% of the disputed land that lies within the Green Line. Israeli governments that can't see the connection between their killing of innocent Palestinians (as just happened again)and Palestinian killing of innocent Israelis. Israeli governments that effectively kill Palestinians by destroying their economy thru collective punishments. As the Passover Hagaddah says in a different context, "with rigor".
And the CIA's overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iraq in 1953 is only the most spectacular of a long list of direct American warlike acts against Muslims nations. This terrorism didn't come out of nowhere for no reason.

Darn, I meant Iran of course. Bet America would take the Republican decision of 1953 to unleash the CIA back if it could. Truman wasn't into anything that extreme. Look what it's cost the people of Iran, us and others. Our interference in Iran in 1953 helped lead to the savage anti-American coup in neighboring Iraq in 1958 that started Iraq's descent into hell.

Shervin,

Gandhi's Ahimsa (non-violence)was never a tactical tool. All those "pragmaticists" who have tried to put it into practice as a tactical tool have failed miserably. It is because Ahimsa has to do with the soul.

I heard the American doomsday scenario ad nauseam, during the Vietnam war. I know it by heart. It has not changed an iota. "Were the Americans to pull out, there would be (in Vietnam) the greatest bloodbath we had ever seen (followed a detailled description)... etc."

The thing is the US was kicked out of Vietnam by the Vietnamese themselves (no ahimsa!)... and the doomsday scenario never materialized.

I have read Sun Tzu, but also Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu. Amongst other things, I remember them insisting:

1. there is no greater calamity than to underestimate the enemy;

2. it is in the nature of a military weapon to turn against its wielder;

3. you win the world by leaving alone.

But I believe those wise men were Chinese, weren't they?

Gandhi's non violence succeeded in getting the British to leave India because the Brits (for all their imperialist faults) believe in human values and democracy.
That same non violence certainly didn't prevent a bloody war between India and Pakistan in which millions died.
It certainly won't work in countries where fascist Islamists are determined to force their beliefs on everyone.

Robert:

As a confirmed materialist, I put very little value into the spiritual aspect of things. Having seen very good spiritual men killed by vicious brutish tugs, I give very little credance to such nonsense. Ghandi succeeded because British concerned themselves a decent people and Ghandi showed that you cannot be decent and occupy a country against the will of its population. He did so by being more decent than the British. You cannot say the same about the Iraqis.

As for Vietnam, the political goal of the North Vietamese were very clear. The same is not true of the Iraqi insurgency.

Shervin

Shervin wrote:

"The indeginous Iraqi insurgency until now had had no definable political goals other than getting the US and its allies out of Iraq."

No people under forceful foreign occupation needs a "political goal" to justify fighting the people who invaded them by force.

What political goal should they have?

Shervin,

Please leave Ghandi out of this. It amazes me how you use him to justify the war crimes of the US government in Iraq.

If Ghandi was alive today he would have condemned this war, just like many people did and still do all over the world.

The other non-sense that you mentioned is that the imperialist British, that colonized half the globe by force, concerned themselves a decent people!

"No people under forceful foreign occupation needs a "political goal" to justify fighting the people who invaded them by force.

"What political goal should they have?"

Sloganeering is quite popular among muslims. Unfortunately, it does not solve problems.

A set of demands for rights would be a good start for a set of political demands.

As for involving Ghandi in here, he would have condemned this war, that is true, but at the same time he would not have advocated blowing up innocent civilians as means of ending it.

As for the nonsense about the Brits being decent people, I am sure that Osama bin Laden considers himself a decent person as do most members of al Qaeda. However, that is not an opinion shared by most people in the US. The Americans also consider themselves a decent people (with more just reason than the Brits) but I am sure Arabs don't consider Americans decent.

Karim:

"Please leave Ghandi out of this. It amazes me how you use him to justify the war crimes of the US government in Iraq."

Apparently you are not used to reading the posts completely or using logic. In no way did I use Ghandi to justify what you call "war crimes" of the US Army. I am using Ghandi as an example of how the Iraqis could fight the US occupation successfully.
My position is that until the Iraqi insurgency takes a more political approach and stops blowing up Shiite woman and childern when they are shopping in the markets or attending religious cermonies, the occupation will not go away.

Based on your statements, you apparently think differently and condone blowing up women and children in market places. That is not something that Ghandi would have advocated.

"The swaggering ignorance of frightened Americans is unending in its provision of comic relief."

Only from a safe distance, my friend.

"1.there is no greater calamity than to underestimate the enemy;

2. it is in the nature of a military weapon to turn against its wielder;

3. you win the world by leaving alone.

But I believe those wise men were Chinese, weren't they?"

Robert:

The first one I completely agree with. But other two are assertions without proof. The first of these assertions is completely false. Just ask Chengiz Khan. He waged war all his life and from all I have read, no harm came to him from it. So at least in his case the military weapon did not turn on him. Neither did it turn on Stalin.

As for the last one it does not even make sense. It would be nice if you could win by leaving the world alone but you don't. More often than not, the world comes knocking at your door even if you had left it alone. Just ask the Belgians in WW I. They had left the world alone but the Germans came marching in anyway. And they did not win.

Finally as for these gentlemen being Chinese: another Chinese gentleman in the 20th century said power emanates from barrel of a gun. The name of the chinese gentleman: Mao Tse Tung.

I am saddened by the lack of real knowledge of Americans of the middleast
or anything beyond the football games of war and destruction. It is obvious that America itself has now been pulled into a
kind of "terrorist" mentality where simply manipulating the media and the emotions of
Americans is victory of some childish and tribal sort. It is also obvious that Americans could care less about what created what we now call terrorism to begin with- namely the covert and not so covert actions of our governmet and allies over an extended 20 year period.

For myself, after being stalked and chased and harrassed in every possible way here in KC missouri by "good" people and university students it is clear to me now that the country of my birth is now the country of the insane. How did this come to be?

How strange then that in a recent trip to Israel, I found nothing but kindness in the midst of conflict from all Israelis that I met.

Is it possible that they know something that we dont?

and Is it possible that our use of Israel as some kind of "holy" justification for the new insanity is in itself very dark and a dangerous course for this my country?

r.k.j.

Perhaps my spellin g in my previous post was purposeful. :)

and my real life experience in the behavior of pathology of American life
is true and without political assertions.

as to the chinese historical view of war and other historical references perhaps that is my fault because I simply used a screen name of an "American" who is supposedly now a "ghost" or some myth of a "curse" upon an American President.

but who has designed such an image? the chinese?

certainly not myself.

my comments are not those of a pacifist,
nor do i come here with informed and easy answers.

But my statement is verified here,
that we have now become what we said we are against... but with platitudes and wise words and advertisements.

In fact the world as we see it today is the result of United States policy and that of its allies- it is WE who have led the world and it is WE who maintain the worlds largest supply of the weapons of mass destruction.

But of course i suspect that we must continue to "lead" but then distance ourselves from any failures or mass murder
due to our right to this worlds resources as granted by God.

As to Bush, our President- I am not afraid to say that I find him to be a "non issue"... he or any other sitting President is only a reflection of our greatest foolishness and inspiration.

but as an ignorant man of few skills in writing and
critical thinking i must simply defer to the prevailing rule of emotion over substance.

r.k.j. (the rose) :)

Shervin:

Major independent human rights organizations have accused the US government of war crimes (even during the first war on Iraq):

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140712003

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/index.htm#TopOfPage

Here is one example of "operation Iraqi Freedom" killings (from Amnesty link above):

"6 April 2003: Ali Ismaeel Abbas, 12, was asleep when a missile obliterated his home and most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and without arms, according to a Reuters report. The boy's father, pregnant mother, brother, aunt, three cousins and three other relatives were killed in night-time missile strikes on their house in Diala Bridge district east of Baghdad."

Of course war apologists and their leaders would be repeating their sick mantra of "it was tragic, sad and unfortunate" to excuse themselves from such crimes.

They forget this boy who was terrorized, maimed for life and who lost in his entire family in a brutal attack is a testimony of the immorality of this war waged by choice against the entire world wish.

I have read so many stories like these, so many sad horrific stories of people who have suffered greatly in these last 3 horrible years of destruction.

But why would you care? They are not your family, not your people, they don't cry or scream in your language, or grief your way.

Remember violence was started by the US government. Even under threats from "God's chosen" leader, Bush, the Iraqi government did not attack the US.

Please don't lecture me about the insurgency as if it is an official elected government with an organized army like the US government.

Who voted for Zargaqwi and his likes? us Arabs who opposed this war and the other one before it?

There was no Zarqawi in Baghdad before the invasion, no markets were blown up. In fact in the last 13 years before this, the only time markets were blown up in Baghdad was when the US army bombed it under Bush I.

Bush's war created tensions among Iraqis, made people accuse each other of treason, of helping foreign occupiers (especially when it the US), etc. The terror of war makes people crazy, enraged and opens the door for criminals and gangs.

Stop worshipping your government and your leaders. They are not Gods.

Karim:

As usual your response is a non-sequiter. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I have not worshipped anyone nor have I supported the war effort in any of my posts. I write these posts because I do care about women and children sufferring and dying. I do care because I know how wretched their lives are. I do care because I am a human being. Having said that. I am also a realist and know how America works. I also know how the Muslim mind works. The false bravado that the current muslim culture creates based on the belief that muslims are superior to others has prevented the muslims to take a critical look at themselves and blame all their ills on the machinations of foreigners and traitors. It is true that foreigner will try to exploit the muslims but they can only succeed if the muslims are weak. Terror, bombings, beheadings in the face of the best army in the world is weakness and will achieve nothing other than death and distruction and prolonged occupation.

Saddam was an Arab creation as was Zarqawi. Do you think if Saddam was loved by the Iraqis the US could have attacked Iraq? It is the weakness of the Arabs and Muslims that allow such men to become their leaders. It is not a question of vote. It is a question of acceptance and Arabs and Muslims accept such men to lead them easily.

Read my posts carefully. I am trying to show how the war and occupation could end without further bloodshed. I agree that war drives people crazy but that is no excuse for blowing up women and children on purpose.

Saddam gassed the Kurds in Hallabja and rained Scuds on Iranian cities. Zarqawi and the Sunni insurgency slaughter women and children for no apparent reason and on purpose. Are these not war crimes?

The US had the capacity to obliterate every Iraqi city and destroy whole neighborhoods in order to save its soldiers' lives. Yet it did not do so. The US military has taken every effort to minimize civilian casualties. But when bombs go off people do die even though they are not targets. It does not matter that the people who dropped the bomb did not mean to kill them. To thier families they are dead and the manner of their death matters little. I understand this. And I understand that this breeds hatred.

At the same time, I know that when a civilian dies in war by accident, it is not considered a war crime, at least not according to the Geneva convention.

As for the three years of horror and distruction, many of those horrors were visited upon people by the insurgency. True that the insurgency is a reaction to the occupation but that does not excuse what the insurgency has done to the population either.

You can be mad at the war and consider it unjust but rage against the war and the US does not solve the problems of Iraq. You cannot justify an insurgency that kills innocent civilians on purpose because they are fighting an occupation just as I cannot excuse Marines killing innocent women and children on purpose in Haditha because they are fighting an insurgency. For us to solve the problems in Iraq and in the Middle East we have to move beyond recriminations and blame games and become realists. It is only in this manner that the problems of the Middle East could be solved and Muslims could take control of their own affairs.

Shervin,

I'd say we seem to at least agree on one thing. As you say, "you cannot be decent and occupy a country against the will of its population". Like you, no doubt, I see that being true of the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan, as well as of Israel in Palestine.

As for "the Iraqi insurgency" not having "a clear political goal", it seems to me that their goal being avowedly to kick the Americans and the "coalition" forces out of their country is both clear and political enough. Surely, you don't mean to say that only Bush's goal to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq's Presidency was "a clear political goal"?

Now, exclusively for you who, as a "confirmed materialist", demand "proofs", back to our Three Chinese Wise Men...

1. "there is no greater calamity than to underestimate the enemy". I am sure you are well aware that in Vietnam, the Americans have once again demonstrated how true this was. You will also agree, being a "realist", that they have done it again in Iraq, where it has become evident, by now, that American troops were not likely, ever, to be cheered, greeted as heroes, and showered with flowers on Baghdad's Main Street. I leave it to you to put numbers and dollar figures on those calamities.

2. "it is in the nature of a military weapon to turn against its wielder". Please note that Lao Tseu does not say this invariably happens, only that it is "natural" that it happens. And as you know, that is precisely what happened on 9-11. Asking themselves WHY the United States had come under attack, some famous Americans have since pointed to the real CAUSES behind the attacks. By so doing, they have confirmed eloquently Lao Tseu's saying. But given you know all this much better than I do, I will not belabour the point.

3. "you win the world by leaving alone". I remember, you told me you "put very little value into the spiritual aspect of things". But just the same, let's try and understand the spirit of this remark by a Taoist. Some indeed believe that interfering in the affairs of every nation, invading, "bombing the h*** out of everybody in preemptive strikes", launching campaigns of terror ("shock and awe") and making enemies all over the world, is to "win the world". In general, those people claim the sentence "does not even make sense". But being abhorred by the whole world, are they really "winning the world"? Look at Vietnam! The Vietnamese forced you to leave them alone, and in the end, you were all too happy to oblige. Vietnam is now a free and peaceful country where there has been more friendship between Americans and Vietnamese in recent years, than ever before, in our lifetime. Don't you think you have more real friends in Vietnam, today, than in the whole of the Middle East? As you know, even before Carnegie, wise people have taken time to reflect on "How to Make Friends and Influence People". Given emperors themselves listened to those men and urged them repeatedly to become their ministers, as a "practical" man you might want to reconsider what they had to say.

Now, as you like to preach Gandhi to muslims, here is some of what Gandhi (no wimp) had to say, that is less often quoted: "Non-violence of the strong cannot be a mere policy... The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating... If the capacity for non-violent self-defense is lacking, there need be no hesitation in using violent means... Injustice must be resisted. No doubt the non-violent way is always the best, but where that does not come naturally the violent way is both necessary and honorable. Inaction here is rank coawardice and unmanly. It must be shunned at all cost... He, who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden."

The British left India not because they were decent but because, once again, they realized "you cannot occupy a country against the will of its population". It is true, of course, that they did not enjoy seeing themselves, and being considered by the whole world, as sub-human, but it is debatable whether they would ever have left India just because of that... Today, in Iraq, British soldiers who refuse to become sub-human resign in the hundreds, but the troops do not leave Iraq. I take note that by implication, Ellen and you do not believe the enemies of the United States, in the Middle East, could ever be successful by appealing to the same decency in the American people, that you consider the British to have been endowed with, in India. Interesting.

A final word. Assuming you are genuinely "trying to show how the war and occupation could end without further bloodshed", why don't you just advocate that American troops to go home now, live a peaceful life, and mind exclusively their own business? Could be in New Orleans. The next hurricane season is just about to begin.

But you are "a realist", you "know how America works", you know "also how the Muslim mind works". Obviously you know all this already. I'll therefore leave it to that.

Shervin:

"I also know how the Muslim mind works."
What, now we have mind readers? Or maybe you were blessed enough to be present in the room with G.B when God was telling him his destiny and mission and managed to glean a few tidbits of wisdom on the side eh.

"the belief that Muslims are superior to others has prevented the Muslims to take a critical look at themselves and blame all their ills on the machinations of foreigners and traitors."

If it was not for that first quote, I would say hats off to you for a wonderful analysis of why some sections of Muslim societies continue to suffer from the malaise of prejudice, discrimination and intolerance. I have often made that point to my peers and family. My only beef (with you and other Western posters) is your attempt to paint all Muslims with the same brush. There is also this desire to paint Islam as the sole reason for why this corruption of Muslim minds and hearts is occurring. Illiteracy, poverty, the deprivation of basic rights, all had large parts to play in the decay of our societies. Religion has been a powerful and convenient tool in the hands of those who exploit the masses (honestly, throughout history which religion has not?). Sweeping statements against Islam and Muslims do nothing to help the debate and never will, unless, like Anne Coulter (Swap the words Christian and Muslim in her books and Al Qaeda would probably distribute them with their training literature.), you would have the entire Muslim population converted to some other religion.

Shervin:

"It is the weakness of the Arabs and Muslims that allow such men to become their leaders."

So that means that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc. are examples of the weakness of the West and Christianity. And I suppose you are correct in that these examples do illustrate an inherent weakness in society that can be exploited by such men (or political and religious ideologies). Again my point is that whether it is supremacy of race, religion, social or political order, they are just the tools used to subdue and subjugate the will of society.

Zain:

As a person brought up in the Muslim tradition (but not a practicing Muslim), I think I can claim that I know how the Muslim mind works.

As for Mussolini and Hitler, yes, they show the weaknesses of the Western society. People are people, regardless of race, religion and ethnicity. Therefore, they all have weaknesses and strengths, just as you might say that George Bush and Bill Clinton reflect weaknesses and/or strengths of the American society.

As for trying to paint the Muslims with the same brush, there is a difference between Islam the religion and the Muslim culture. If you read my posts careful my emphasize is on the Muslim culture and not Islam as a religion.

"A final word. Assuming you are genuinely "trying to show how the war and occupation could end without further bloodshed", why don't you just advocate that American troops to go home now, live a peaceful life, and mind exclusively their own business? Could be in New Orleans. The next hurricane season is just about to begin."

Robert:

I love the old left so much because as much as I try to reason with you people, you keep sounding like a broken record. Your fanaticism about your beliefs matches only that of religious zealots of religious right in the US and al Qaeda Islamists.

If you had read my posts before, the reason that I don't advocate the course that you recommend is that I think things are going to get much worse if the US leaves right now. I have said so in all my previous posts and if you are unable to understand these words then I have nothing else to say. You may disagree with me but at this time, unless you have access to detailed plans of what the insurgency will do in Iraq (and for that matter the Shiite militias) then I don't think that you have much facts to counter my argument.

I am the first to admit that the US screwed up big time the prosecution of the Iraq war and invasion itself was a mistake. However, those mistakes won't go away if the US pulls out now.

"I take note that by implication, Ellen and you do not believe the enemies of the United States, in the Middle East, could ever be successful by appealing to the same decency in the American people, that you consider the British to have been endowed with, in India. Interesting."

Robert:

Again none is so blind as those who refuse to see. Actually, my whole point has been that the insurgency in Iraq could be much more successful if they took the non-violent path. At this time they do not.

Shervin

I know this is a plug, but the book "White Male Privilege" could really help in the fight against racism. (Racism against the people of the United States and or racism against all others in the world) A review can be seen on Amazon.com

I know this is a plug, but the book "White Male Privilege" could really help in the fight against racism. (Racism against the people of the United States and or racism against all others in the world) A review can be seen on Amazon.com

I know this is a plug, but the book "White Male Privilege" could really help in the fight against racism. (Racism against the people of the United States and or racism against all others in the world) A review can be seen on Amazon.com

Saddam was captured. The violence did not end. His sons were killed. The violence continued. Two elections were held. Violence accelerated. Nor Zarquawi dies. If the past offers any insight, hids death soould make little difference.

Shervin:

"If you read my posts careful my emphasize is on the Muslim culture and not Islam as a religion."

You are correct and I apologize for that error.

However, I still think that your statements referring to Muslims and Muslim culture are too sweeping. Also I am not sure that I would call some of the barbaric customs practiced in some Muslim societies "Muslim customs". These are customs practiced by people whose faith happens to be Islam. Honor killings, weddings to the Quran, and the second class treatment of women are widespread in rural Pakistan, for example, but these are born out of a culture of male dominance and feudalism; a culture where tribalism, male heirs, and land take precedence over all else. Religion is abused and twisted to provide justification for their immoral acts. This is criminal behavior, abetted and encouraged by a State that lacks the will and means to enforce and provide basic human rights and dignities to its citizens.

"Actually, my whole point has been that the insurgency in Iraq could be much more successful if they took the non-violent path."

And how much international support the Palestinians would have had for their legitimate demands, if they too had focused primarily on political resistance.

Playing politics may not be as romantic or glorified as the war scarred hero vanquishing his foe on the battlefield, but it is yards more effective.

Shervin:

"As a person brought up in the Muslim tradition (but not a practicing Muslim), I think I can claim that I know how the Muslim mind works. "

No you don't. What you wrote is a racist bigoted statement. So you are saying a Muslim from say an Indian Muslim knows how my Moroccan-Arab mind works???

I have met many South Asian Muslims, and I don't see much in common with them. On the contrary I see no difference between them and their non-Muslim south asians (for example Indians).

There are few Muslims who support Bush's crimes, and let's remember that Saddam thought of himself as a Muslim.

This war is primary against Arabs, where oil is.

I am approaching this criminal war from an Arab perspective.

Whether it's Zarqawi or someone else leading the insurgency is irrelevant. The insurgency exists because the original U.S. invasion was illegitimate -- illegitimate internationally, fought on fraudulent grounds, and illegitimate internally. All the U.S. military might in the world cannot change that. This is what the dunderheads like Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush fail - or refuse - to understand. How many more thousand Americans, how many more tens of thousands of Iraqis, will die before that basic truth is finally recognized in Washington.
This adventure was doomed from the outset. Someday, the ignoramuses who make up mainstream "middle America" will wake up to the hard fact that raw U.S. power is capable of achieving precious little in the world unless the causes it embraces have some legitimacy.
This cause didn't, and never had.

Karim:

"Saddam thought of himself as a Muslim."

And a lot of people agreed that he was a Muslim in the Muslim world just as a lot of Muslims consider Zarqawi or Bin Laden a Muslim.

On the other side of the coin a lot of people consider George Bush a Christian, but the opposition to George Bush is a lot stronger in the Western world than opposition is to a Zarqawi or a Bin Laden or a Saddam in the Muslim world. Why? Why is it that criminals such as Zarqawi and Bin Laden and Saddam are proclaimed as champions of the Muslim and Arab cause by so many while Bush is in general reviled by the west (even in the US)?

Until and unless the Arabs can answer this question in a satisfactory fashion or denounce these men in the loudest possible voice, then the west will choose to think of Arabs and Muslims as barbarians and the slaughter of the Arabs and Muslims by the westerners is not going to be opposed.

Arabs cannot use the execuse of occupation to become barbarians. No one will care in the west about Arab women and children if the Arabs don't change the perception that they are barbarians. Whether or not this perception is correct or not, the fact remains that beheadings and sucide bombings and killing of women and children on purpose does not change that perception.

This is not that Arabs and Muslims have not known compassion or politics. One has to look only at Salahuddin to see how Muslims can be more noble and more compassionate than their opponents despite of the barbarity of their enemies. He chose negotiation over bloodshed whenever possible. He personally paid the ransom for thousands of the Christian inhibatants of Jerusalam and gave them all safe passage. This despite the barbarity of Crusaders such as Richard the Lion Heart.

A criticism of Islamic world is not a criticism of Islam and if the criticism is valid then it is not racist. Karim you can choose to be outraged as much as you want and call Bush criminal as much as you like but unless you make it clear to me that you personally condemn the sucide bombings and the beheadings and the willful slaughter of innocent women and children by the insurgency then you cannot in anyway, shape or form talk about peace or prove to me that you desrve any better than being thought of as a barbarian.

Again, what Bush or anyone else has done does not excuse you becoming a barbarian or supporting barbarian actions of the others. One has to be moral at all times, regardless of what the conditions are.

Shervin:

1- You mentioned you were brought up in the Muslim tradition, out of curiosity please specify which.

Let me give you an example so perhaps you could realize that this "Muslim mind" is a gross over-simplification that serves only bigotry.

Colonial France colonized 3 North African Muslim countries: Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia (and not to mention others in the Middle East: Syria and Lebanon).

This is how French occupation, enforced by the same so-called democratic government, was ended in those 3 places:

Morocco (in 1953): little violence.

Tunisia (in 1953): also little violence.

Algeria (in 1961): a bloody war of Independence that cost Algeria 1 million people.

So you the self-proclaimed expert in the "Muslim mind", please explain this to us?

2- This is my answer to you about Bush vs OBL.

OBL is on the run. OBL was stripped off of his citizenship by the Saudi government way before 9-11. Zarqawi was sentenced to death 3 times in Jordan. Tell me about one single indictment by any US court against Bush? None. OBL is responsible for the death of 3000 people in America, Bush is responsible for the death of 10 thousands of Iraqis, and God knows how many Afghani civilians were killed.

You claimed that Saddam was hailed as a champion by Muslims, did the Iranians think of him as a champion? How many Iraqis paid with their lives standing up to Saddam?

Besides, even if other Arabs (non-Iraqis) or Muslims did, they neither served in his army and obeyed his criminal orders, nor did they send him money and weapons to wage his wars against other nations (remember many Iraqi soldiers deserted).

Is it the case with Bush?

Bush's term will end and he will have a nice retirement and they will most likely have few federal/military buildings named after him, just like his father.

Saddam's crimes against his own people were largely unknown to most Arabs due to many well-known reasons (such as media censorship). It shouldn't surprise you since even in America with its free media many do not know about the crimes of their government outside of America (there are many books written about this subject). Some prefer to dismiss them like you seem to do.

3- Well I see that you are concerned more about perception. That is, you are excusing US-Western ignorance and some of their prejudice in order to blame it on the victims themselves. It is like asking Jews to have no rich people among their community in order to convince anti-semites that "Jews are not money-grabbing" people.

If only it worked that way. Trust me, there will always be other reasons to justify that perception that you spoke about as long as there is bigotry and ignorance to feed it.

4- We have to establish a common ground here. It is well established by most people, western and others, that beheading people or crashing planes into buildings is barbaric. Now the Pentagon doesn't consider launching missiles into human beings, inhabited houses, government buildings as barbaric. It is considered a routine military action during wars. Images of "laser guided bombings" are even broadcast routinely on CNN. The viewers like see targets pulverized but care less about the people inside as long as they don't see them.

This is where lies the difference. While you might see some building or some house getting destroyed, I see people destroyed in a barbaric way.

You believe that somewhat the west (which is really just the US government today), sets the standard. Well I don't, and neither do most Europeans by the way.

4- I agree with you that one has to be moral all the times. I never implied that I supported what the insurgency does. I do not support what organized armies do, let alone a bunch of gangs like the ones in Iraq. You on the other hand make excuses for the US army. If the US army is asked to nuke a civilian city, they would do it. They did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and still justify it even today. Am I wrong?

5- I think few of us here argue that to end the killings in Iraq, the US army should withdraw. That's the main reason people are fighting and that's what started it. What else is there?

If things get worse, then anything but a Western army could try to help stop the mess.

Why do you oppose such plan?

3 years is more than enough and close to 500 billion dollars is also enough. It's time to go home and save whatever is left.

Karim:

Please read my previous posts. I think you will find the answer to all your questions there.

As OBL and Zarqawi and Saddam: first of all I never claimed that Saddam was loved by all Muslims, rather, a large number of Muslims hold Saddam as a champion of Islam and the Arab cause. As OBL and Zarqawi, the same is true.

As for blaming the Muslims for perception: there is a world of difference between somebody being rich and cutting head of somebody off. The fact that you use this analogy to me shows that you are making excuses for the barbaric act committed by the insurgency and as such you are a barbarian.

As for the US bombing of civilians: you really have to dig deep in order to bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the mix. If you read your history, the experience of the American forces in Okinawa had shown that and invasion of mainland Japan would have cost about 1 million dead among the Japanese and Japan was not going to surrender. Use of the bombs was therefore the lesser of two evils. As for the US military's killing civilians: can you give me an example of the US military ON PURPOSE bombing a purely civilian target in Iraq? I think not. Mistakes happen in war, that is why war should be avoided as much as possible (but not always such as fighting with Hitler).

As for Algeria, the main reason for the bloodshed there was the fact that unlike Tunisia and Morroco, a large number of French people had colonized Algeria and that caused much greater tension between the Arabs and the French. Hence the violence.

Finally, with regards to George Bush: we shall see about him having an easy retirement.

Finally, with regards to perception: the BS that you are blowing with regards to Europeans is fascinating. Just look at the condition of the Muslims in the European countries and you will see that Europeans consider Muslims barbarians and savages. That is why the French oppose admission of Turkey into the EU and that is why a few months ago you had the riots in France. Besides, the reason that the US perception is important is that it is the US that is fighting in Iraq not other westerners. Therefore, it is the perception of the Americans that need to be changed not anyone else.

As for the US withdrawl: look at how many Iraqis are killing other Iraqis now. I think if the US pulls out now the situation will get worse and more people will die. The US has to pull out but the time is not now.

Brave Shervin,

«One has to be moral at all times, regardless of what the conditions are», you say? Well then, Shervin, you go for it. You show us that you can walk the talk. There is enough on your American plate, today, to keep you busy for a while. Here is genuine homegrown American pie BARBARISM for you.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, speaking to the BBC's Newshour programme, has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention", "a tactic to further the jihadi cause". That Ms Graffy said the three men did not value their lives. "I believe this was...an act of warfare waged against us", added Rear Adm Harry Harris, the Camp commander. This is reported at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5069230.stm, at http://news.scotsman.com/, by timesonline, etc. It has people from all over the world writing to express their indignation, outrage and disgust at such a degree of soullessness, quite beyond mere barbarism. And to add insult to injury, the clueless in chief claims the bodies will be "treated humanely and with cultural sensitivity," White House press secretary Tony Snow assures us. That is to say those who cannot treat people humanely and with cultural sensitivity will have a try with bodies. Abou Ghraib has already given us excellent indications as to what degree of success we can expect.
To induce someone to commit suicide is murder! You, as an American should therefore demand all those responsible for the running of that unique type of death camp be charged with murder in an international court of justice as war criminals guilty of crimes against humanity. We should not be the ones to demand it. This is YOUR responsibility, and that of each and every American, not only as citizens, but above all as human beings.
That is why you should first spend your time ridding the world and humanity of the barbarians that are in your mist. Those soulless creatures put humanity to shame. In the current circumstances, and after that many years of American pie barbarism, for you to have the gall to call others «barbarians» before having dealt your very own BARBARIANS is not only disingenuous, hypocritical, shameful and sickening, it is revolting. As an American, you have nothing to be self-righteousness and cocky about. Really. Just remember this: last time I met people abroad carrying a rucksack with the Canadian flag stuck on it, they were "proud" Americans who were prepared to do ANYTHING so nobody would know they were Americans.
Shervin, to use your own words, "you can choose to be outraged as much as you want and call others criminal as much as you like but unless you make it clear to me that you personally condemn your very own American barbarians, such as those who induce others to commit suicide in that exclusively American death camp, then you cannot in anyway, shape or form talk about peace or prove to me that you deserve any better than being thought of as a barbarian. Again, what terrorists or anyone else has done does not excuse you becoming a barbarian or supporting barbarian actions of the others. One has to be moral at all times, regardless of what the conditions are."
So you get going, Shervin, you "be moral at all times". We're all watching, closely watching, my friend. Let's see how good you are at it.

Robert:

The suicides that you are talking about could very well have been PR moves. Al Qaeda has shown that its members are willing to commit suicide to further their cause and this COULD be an example. I am not willing to jump to conclusions as fast as you are. Let the facts come out. Of course you believe that the US is barbaric and that is your previllage but I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. If this bothers you so be it.

Your totalitarian tendencies are shown throughout your posts. You don't allow for honest differences of opinion and you much rather misunderstand facts and statements as opposed to change your own opinion. Great old left strike again.

Robert:

One final note: to call Gitmo a "death camp" is an insult to all the people that died in Auschewitz and other Nazi death camp. The conditions in Gitmo is in no way comparable to those camps but again you consider the US government no better than the Nazis. It is such hyperbole that prevents us from having a intelligent conversation.

Shervin. Hmmmmm such an unusual "american" name. As you blast away at everyone else, idiotically, why don't you use your real name? Or at least something ....like...Saxyboy or something.
One notices a certain "type" uses names obviously not their own. Not proud?

The death of Al-Zarqawi was an Intelligence victory involving local people. If this type of operation can be recreated, significant military progress might be made in Iraq. Iraqis and ot