Yippieeee! Al Zarqawi is DEAD

Yaaaaaaaaay! Al Zarqawi is DEAD. I just watched the breaking news on CNN. Let’s hope the insurgency led attacks in Iraq will decrease so that Iraqis can move faster towards peace and prosperity. I hope him gone, will make drastic improvements.

18 Responses to “Yippieeee! Al Zarqawi is DEAD”

1. Qatar Cat on June 8th, 2006 2:18 am

   Yay!

   I hope so too. Well, lets wait and see…

2. Andrew Brehm on June 8th, 2006 2:42 am

   Justice has taken its course.

   Zarqawi was a terrorist, a murderer, an un-believer, and a traitor.

   He will get his punishment in hell now.

3. Anonymous on June 8th, 2006 4:15 am

   Do you honestly believe that Zarqawi being dead will help stop the terrorism…Drima, terrorists don’t always need a leader to do what they do, the leader probably just does some of the organisation, some fueling of hatred,etc. But terrorists can do sooooo well without Zarqawi, I am actualy worried that those terrorists would commit another act as revenge…We’ll have to wait and see…

4. Anonymous on June 8th, 2006 4:47 am

   I am the same anonymous who just posted the 4:15 am comment.

   This is what I mean Drima:
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_zarqawi_qaida

5. Drima on June 8th, 2006 5:28 am

   No Zarqawi being dead defintely won’t stop terrorism but he got what he deserved. If terrorism is to be stopped, then the root issue has to be fixed. The main root issue in my opinion is Jerusalem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved. It is the main thing that’s always used to fuel the hatred in terrorists. Also I think that if terrorists are to be stopped then we must make sure we eliminate them at a faster speed than the one they’re being breeded in. Democracy being installed in the region is another key factor too.

6. Andrew Brehm on June 8th, 2006 5:45 am

   “If terrorism is to be stopped, then the root issue has to be fixed. The main root issue in my opinion is Jerusalem.”

   Nope. The root issue of people murdering other people is the belief that such behaviour is profitable.

   If we give in at all to any of their demands, we would confirm that view.

   Terrorists will not stop murdering Iraqis just because Jerusalem has been given back to a particular previous owner.

   Perhaps those who believe that the Americans are murdering innocent Iraqis can try and argue that if we took Jerusalem away from the Jews and gave it back to the crusaders or even the Greeks, Bush’s crusade would stop?

   Why would it work the other way around?

   Alternatively, what if the entire territory of Judaea and Israel of old was given back to the Jews… perhaps that would stop the IDF? Is it something worth considering?

   The Palestinian conflict (between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians) is not fuelling hatred; Arab claims about the conflict is.

   Israel is already not doing most of the things that Jews are hated for (the AIDS virus, massacres etc.), yet terrorism doesn’t die down because of that.

   You yourself used to blame Ariel Sharon for a massacre that was committed by a Maronite Christian (who afterwards defected to Syria, where evil people are perhaps more appreciated). Does the fact that he didn’t commit the massacre change Arab anger over it? (Does the fact that all other massacres committed in Lebanon by non-Jews were more bloody change anything?)

   No, my friend, it’s not the conflict that fuels anger. It’s people’s perception of the conflict. You didn’t believe that Sharon was a war-criminal because of a massacre he committed, you believed that Sharon was a war-criminal because of a massacre committed by somebody else. Do you believe the terrorists are more open-minded than you? I doubt it.

   I have met my share of pro-Palestinian (and they always mean non-Jewish Palestinians) protesters who after several wars meant to drive the Jews into the sea still have no idea what an ultimate victory for their side would mean for Jews. Another five million Jews dead (if they cannot escape) seems a small price to pay for the freedom of Arab Palestinians, especially considering that they could have had that freedom in 1947 (in Israel), before 1967 (in three quarters of Palestine, including Jordan where most Arab Palestinians have always lived), and in 2000 (in the same area), without any bloodshed at all.

   But the preferred solution for (Arab) Palestinian freedom is to get rid of the Jews. It’s not even cheaper. It’s just more violent, and that seems good enough (and is preferred over the other solution by many).

   Please, before you decide what Israel could do, think about what you can do.

   Israel already gave up control of the temple mount, Judaism’s holiest site, to Arab Muslims (Do you think I can pray on the site and survive? Do you think I could if Jerusalem was under Arab control again?).

   Would Muslims consider giving up Mecca for peace?

   I don’t think so. How can you demand the same of Jews?

7. Drima on June 8th, 2006 6:38 am

   Andrew I NEVER said Jerusalem should be given up and handed to the Muslims. I only said it’s the root issue that’s used to inspire hatred. I just watched an interview of Zarqawi’s brother in law on Al-Jazeera and he (not surprisingly) mentioned that Zarqawi told him he was not just fighting for Iraq but for Palestine. I’m against Jews handing over Jerusalem to Muslims and I agree with most of what you said. I myself believe and STRONGLY support the Jews’ right to Jerusalem and like I always like to say “sharing is caring”. What I meant was that as long as the (fight) and or (perceived fight) over Jerusalem continues, a strong reason to inspire hatred within people turning them into terrorists will also exist. Muslims know Jerusalem is holy to Jews and Christians alike. How do you want to convince those who believe the “infidels” have a long term plan to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque that no such thing exists? How do you prove to them the Jews and Christians are not raging a crusade in the region in order to control Jerusalem and the oil. How do you prove to them the Jews have no plan to control their holy land which spans from the Euphrates to the Nile (as some people see the Israeli flag symbolizing)

   See my previous post http://sudanesethinker.blogspot.com/2006/04/request-for-explanation.html

   How do you prove it to them when Al-Jazeera broadcasts images to millions of Muslims in the world aimed at ALWAYS making America and Israel look like the bad guy.

   It will not be easy changing people’s perceptions especially when they are transfixed on the focal point which is the Israeli-Palestinian issue and Jerusalem. As such if a solution to this conflict is found then I think it’s quite possible to change people’s perceptions.

   I understand very well working on that alone is not enough and that massive attitude change needs to occur on the Muslim side but please remember that it takes 2 hands to clap. I personally can open my mind and push aside my anger and frustration over the issue to be able to think clearly but unfortunately most people are not like you or me Andrew.

   It takes 2 hands to clap.

   PS: What do you think about Israel’s secret Nuclear program???

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm

8. Andrew Brehm on June 8th, 2006 7:05 am

   “I NEVER said Jerusalem should be given up and handed to the Muslims.”

   Sorry! I wasn’t sure and assumed wrong.

9. Drima on June 8th, 2006 7:16 am

   Andrew, it’s all good man… However please I would appreciate your opinion on this…

   What do you think about Israel’s secret Nuclear program???

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm

10. Andrew Brehm on June 8th, 2006 7:17 am

    “What do you think about Israel’s secret Nuclear program???”

    I think it is unfortunate but justified.

    Justified not only because a deterrent can help avoid bloody wars, but also because Israel never signed a treaty giving up its right to develop nuclear weapons.

    Ironically, there is no need for Israel to sign, as the “payment” the treaty offers in return is the sharing of technology which was, to a large degree, invented by Jews.

    Note this excellent statement in the article:

    “The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power programme justifying such a large reactor - seen as circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb programme - but found no evidence of “weapons-related activities”.”

    The very same results convinced everybody in the world that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. If such evidence is enough for Iraq, then perhaps it good enough for Israel too. And that could mean that Israel doesn’t actually have nuclear weapons, and were are talking about nothing.

    Either way, Israel has made it perfectly clear that her weapons program is a deterrent. An American ally who doesn’t want to attack other countries is obviously not a problem the US would have to solve. There is a double standard applied by the US of course: they treat their allies differently than their enemies. Naturally, the US are not everybody’s dad, trying to treat his children fairly.

    “Other states in the Middle East, many of them strong supporters of the Palestinian cause, have expressed deep concern about the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons programme.” (from the article)

    That shows that it is working.

    I really wish Israel wouldn’t have nuclear weapons. The belief that Israel does is all that is required.

    “Mohamed ElBaradei told an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, that the IAEA operated under the assumption that Israel had nuclear weapons despite the fact that it had never officially confirmed this.” (from the article)

    Now, isn’t that weird?

11. Andrew Brehm on June 8th, 2006 7:18 am

    “Zarqawi told him he was not just fighting for Iraq but for Palestine”

    I think that’s true. His people certainly cause as much grief to Iraqis as they cause to Palestinians.

12. The Raccoon on June 8th, 2006 7:21 am

    Drima -

    Israel has nuclear weapons, and lots of them. It’s also a country that is highly unlikely to survive without them for very long (we are still officially at war with quite a few states with massive armies - states that have officially put the destruction of Israel as a major goal).

    Moreover, the responsibility of Israel with regards to nuclear weapons has been proven time and time again - we’ve had them since the early 60s, and didn’t use them even though two wars were fought against Israel in that time (+countless smaller conflicts that did not threaten Israel’s existence).

    A nuclear-armed Israel is an unfortunate necessity.

13. Drima on June 8th, 2006 7:45 am

    The perception on the other side (ie. Muslim countries) is also the same and that is what I mentioned in my previous comment…

    “How do you want to convince those who believe the “infidels” have a long term plan to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque that no such thing exists? How do you prove to them the Jews and Christians are not raging a crusade in the region in order to control Jerusalem and the oil.”

    As such if this is the perception that persists then no blaming them for wanting nuclear weapons so badly…

    Arrrghhh…. perceptions perceptions perceptions perceptions…

    This is not a clash of civilizations but a clash and a war of perceptions!

14. The Raccoon on June 8th, 2006 8:23 am

    Drima -

    It’s both. Civilizations and perceptions. You’re spot on the bugger - every side is sure that the other side is out to get them. Unfortunately, however, the Israelis have had ample proof.

15. Tsedek on June 8th, 2006 8:33 am

    I got a text-msg announcing it on my cell - I never get text msgs on my cell - isn’t that strange?

    I don’t think terrorism will stop in Iraq now - but I do think it’s good a symbol is taken out.

    Also I like the idea that they must feel uncertain now and hopefully that’ll lead to it that they must restrict their “operations” (seen that a collaborator, most probably one of Zarqawi’s bodyguards, told military where he could be found).

    I always thought Zarqawi was Palestinian ….

    Tse.

16. Leilouta on June 8th, 2006 12:57 pm

    “Zarqawi told him he was not just fighting for Iraq but for Palestine”

    Oh yea??? Why did he behead Iraqis then? And bomb weddings in Jordan. This is ridiculous!

17. The Egyptian Observer on June 8th, 2006 2:41 pm

    This is definitely a momentous day in the history of Iraq.

    Please visit my blog to read an analysis of al-Zarqawi’s decapitation and the repercussions to follow.

    http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com

18. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 2:38 am

    “Oh yea??? Why did he behead Iraqis then? And bomb weddings in Jordan. This is ridiculous!”

    He beheaded Iraqis and bombed Jordanian weddings because that is what these people do.

    And once the Palestinian Arabs learn that doing that sort of thing should not be the “Palestinian cause”, they will have a state in no time.

    But at the moment, these crimes are exactly the standard one expects from a “fight for Palestine”.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website