Zarqawi An Ex-Terrorist!

by Jimmy Akin on June 9, 2006

in Current Affairs

I blog in the evenings, so I’m a day behind the news cycle, but in case you haven’t heard, our forces got "Abu Musab" al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa’eda in Iraq and so he can’t kill any more innocents anymore!

WOO-HOO!!!

Now, I must say that I’m sorry that the chief head-hacker of Iraq didn’t repent of his ways and cease his head-hacking, terrorist actions, but given that he didn’t, I’m glad that he is no longer able to hack off people’s heads.

I don’t wish death on anyone–death is a grave physical evil–and I’d rather see them repent and live. I even hope for the salvation of his soul, despite the abominable actions he undertook (which is to say, I hope that he either repented at the last second or that he was so mentally scarred by previous life traumas that he was not sufficiently rational to be responsible for his horriffic actions). But killing people is such a serious matter that there are times when a person refuses to repent of their own death-dealing actions and they must be removed from the ranks of the breathing.

This is the basis of the Church’s just war doctrine. You can’t say that any war in history has been just unless you are willing to say that removing certain individuals from the ranks of the breathing is just. And if (regardless of what you think of the Iraq War as a whole) you don’t agree that a head-hacker like Zarqawi was such an individual then God bless you.

It is to be appreciated that Zarqawi can no longer harm anyone and that the forces that supported his campaign of terror have been dealt a major blow.

It may be an even larger blow than is apparent, since in a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri (bin Laden’s #2 man) to Zarqawi last year revealed the senior al-Qa’eda leader asking for a donation of money from al-Qa’eda in Iraq to the parent organization, which was hard up for cash.

Depending on how well Zarqawi’s group is able to re-group in the wake of his demise, the decapitation of al-Qa’eda in Iraq thus may translate into a significant blow (by loss of revenues and further esteem in the Muslim world) to al-Qa’eda in general.

And that’s good news.

Fortunately, most individuals–Democrat or Republican or independent–can acknowledge this.

It is simply inexplicable–and despicable–that certain individuals in Congress would claim that this is a stunt or otherwise seek to portray it as anything but good news.

EXCERPTS:

"This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess — get out."

I have a difficult time regarding as anything other than the actions of asini those politicians who would be so focused on their own agenda that–regardless of what one thinks we should do at this point in the war–one could not agree with Democratic senate leader Harry Reid and say,

"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community."

Indeed.

The chief head-hacker of Iraq can’t hack heads off anymore.

GET THE STORY.

and

GET THE LARGER STORY.

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

The more I read on the invasions of Iran and Syria--the more I am concerned about the neocon influence.

The New Oxford Review editors claim that Neocons want to buy them and buy off Catholic groups and periodicals.

no but kill the right terrorists
and don't create new or different ones
Israel in Lebanon CREATES TERRORISM FOR EVERYONE ELSE
US being in Iraq is BAD for the war on terror
Afghanistan is GOOD
This is not liberals, anti-semites and naive peaceniks or arabists but
former CIA, General Zinni, Republican Senator Hagel (wounded Vietnam vet), other former Generals, former security specialists
Cheney the chickenhawk sucks
Halburiton is doing war profiteering
(not as bad as Lincoln and the worst Custer LLC)
Obama made a lot of sense recently (and I am not a fan of him) on privatization of war (Sen from IL)
Rumsfield is an arrogant old jerk who is getting my friends killed
Iraq has no good plan
London, Spain, Turkey, TERRORISM HAS INCREASED
Thank God it has not hit us in the 50 again
Iraq is not getting better
Israel is myopic and self centered, yes much better than the surrounding but hurting us nonetheless

Just because you killed the puppet, or the actor, doesn't mean we are safe. The theaters'full and the owner is hidden, silent, but deadly

It is good this evil terrorist is dead.
Was Sharon also a terrorist?
Is Netanyahu also spewing hate?

I was in an onsite where a 1 star general who was in Iraq helping create the government early on in was asked a question about:
1. Do the Kurds want an independent state? (which the current constitution would preclude)
and
2. How were minorities specifically Assyrians (who do not consider themselves Assyrians similar and historically justified despite a similiar phenotype to how the (some) Lebanese consider themselves Phoenicians and not Arab, Assyrians are a separate (nation) people descended from Babylonians and distinct genetically and historically from Arabs) and Christians generally (Arab Christians non-Assyrians) How were minorities especially Christians being treated?
On question #1 the General said that the Kurds don't want a separate state, which is absurd and in denial of the US. If we are to blame Saddam (and we should) for mistreatment of Kurds we should also blame our NATO ally Turkey (which also has been brutal although they view it by necessity) THE KURDS WANT AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND DO USE "TERRORISM". The General was delusional, in denial, or giving the party line to make sure everyone was motivated.
On question #2: The General and much of the "Intelligence" apparatus surrounding Iraq is not aware about and does not perceive the Iraqi Christians and strategically important and minority rights are less protected under the current de facto Shia regime than under S.H.
Recognizing the current dire situation is not a justification for S.H. Zarqawi or anything else.
Christians are not even on the radar screen.
Bill may feel the need to be "gauche" and want facts or evidence and not "assertions. Well, I have been to Iraq and am in the military.
Moreover, I have a Masters in Middle Eastern Studies at a prominent University paid for by the Army. My wife is part Assyrian (in union with Rome although most of her family is not) My wife hates Saddam and most of her family were at least initially in support of the invasion. The civilian death count in this Operation is probably at least 100,000 since the inception. I don't know about the accuracy of the numbers on the Embargo after Operation Desert Storm but there was a lot of death and destruction that we caused. What the invasion stopped (it did not stop terrorism) and what the end goal is (we are in a Vietnam like occupational state and Vietnam was at least to stop communism, we are creating a more religious "fundamentalist" state with closer ties to Iran). There is no political or strategic goal in site and we caused a lot of, in some cases, unnecessary destruction.
It is good that Zarqawi is dead. The future may hold good in the end for the people in Iraq for us BUT the interim is Hell. The various Christian community(ies) are in a greater Hell in Iraq now than they were before the war.
Posted by: Col | Jun 11, 2006 4:45:51 PM

Casca and Hippo should a good conversation.

Hippo is right on some things.
There is no theological debate on common ground which potentially is important:
1. One God
2. Children of Abraham
3. Moral code based on ten commandments
4. belief in Angels and demons
5. Honor for Jesus (also significant disagreement)
6. Honor for Mary
7. Belief in a Supernatural worldview, miracles, angels, demons, afterlife, heaven, hell
8. Monotheism as contrasted with pantheism or other views such as secular materialism
9. belief in giving to charity
10. belief at least in some sects of both sides in pilgrimage, visiting gravesites (not in strict Wahabbinism nor in Protestantism)
11. Holy day and keeping Sabbath
12. Both have common current modern "enemy" in communism, aethism, secularism

Wow, what original thinking! Never heard anyone make those assertions before!
Okay, going back to reading the story of "The Big, Bad Halliburton!"

The Iraq war does not meet the principles of the Just War doctrine. It is certainly not proportional. The US was not threatened by Iraq and is more so now.
This war is immoral. Catholics have been bamboozled by Bush, the neocons, big corporate America that is going liberal, and oil companies.

Bill,
I know you were joking. I was using you joke to make a more explicit argument against the idea that 'Bush lied, people died' for those who believe such stupidity. I'm done here. Peace out.

Yes, David, I was joking. You got the point I was trying to make.

Bill,
Please tell me you're joking. Then GW Bush knew there were no WMDs, so he built his whole case upon that which he knew wouldn't hold up? Hmmm, not very bright, if you ask me.

Yeah! Not only did they lie about WMDs, but they're so stupid that they didn't plant any so some would be found.

The UN can drip with blood money AND Haliburton can have politically connected no bid contracts.
I think the earlier post about being insensitive to the suffering others is true at least for some.
I was very pro-Bush, very pro invasion of Afghanistan, but I am having second thoughts on Iraq and some other aspects of this whole thing.

Ya know, Hans Urs, I was with you ( I mean, at least I could understand your point of view, even if I disagree) right up until your last few paragraphs, when your brain exploded.
"US conservative Catholic circles of neo-conservative Chickenhawks, who want to invade everywhere, without a plan..."
You're babbling... it's nonsense.
"These neo-cons view soldiers as toy soldiers..."
Again, rot. That's like me saying that you have no sympathy for the people that Saddam murdered and tortured to death, and that in order to PROVE that you mourn their deaths you must agree with me.
"The oil producing rich despotic decadent nations and the big waspy corporations raping the US taxpayer through no bid contracts in Iraq are running this game..."
Evidence please? The best debunking of the Evil Halliburton meme that I have heard came from NPR - that's National Public Radio - not exactly a bastion of conservatism.
You did get one thing right... the UN sanctions killed many more than either Saddam or Gulf War II. They were absolutely idiotic and unjust. They never worked.
And yet, what did we hear over and over again from opponents of Gulf War II? "Give Sanctions a Chance!!"... millions of innocents starving, Saddam sitting pretty, bribing the UN committees that were supposed to oversee the whole thing... and they continually argued that this is PREFERABLE to the actual war?
I hope we have learned our lesson. Our mucking about at the UN served no purpose at all, except to let Saddam make preparations. It was a sham. Bill Clinton had it right in Serbia (and I didn't vote for him); Don't ask for permission from the UN or anyone else... just go do what you have to do.
The UN drips with blood money, and we should ignore them unless they can be useful to us. Our mistake was in ever taking the Iraq situation to them in the first place.

Sorry,
That was my comment.

Should be "Talking" Points. (More coffee!)

Hans Urs: You regurgitate the Taling Points with eloquence.

1. I am Happy that Zarwqawi is dead. Happy may not be the right word but it is good that he is dead and I have positive emotions.
2. The brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was and is a bad man and did bad things.
3. War is long and complicated and people die.
4. Islamic terrorism is a real threat to us (the United States of America) and the world.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that:
1. We should of invaded Iraq. We probably shouldn't have. BUT I do agree that we can't leave now.
2. The Iraq War is going well. It is not.
3. The Iraq occupation is not well planned, nor well run. This is former military people, Army, Marines, a number of even generals and General Zinni to be specific.
4. The US instigated UN embargo(started by George Hebert Walker Bush) killed (even if indirectly) millions of people.
5. The current US invasion of Iraq and current occupational (we literally call it the occupational authority) have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS, perhaps justified, perhaps not, perhaps part of war, but to be desensitized to that is not spiritually healthy and not part of the Culture of Life.
6. Comments such as Nuke them, or destroy Fallujah are not part of the Culture of life and do demonstrate an ethnocentrism and attitude that is not recognizibly Christian.
7. There is a clear link between Iraq and terrorism although perhaps not as clear of link between Al-Queda and terrorism. There is evidence that our policies pushed previous ideological enemies to a unity. It is unclear shy so many people on this blogsite either don't know, don't care, or don't want to know that Al-Queda was oppossed to Saddam, that Saddam while using Islamic symbols was a pro-Western secularist (not an Islamicist) who fought Sunni extremists and Shia. (by far the most pro-Western in policy at least throughout the 80's with numerous documented meetings, compliments, money and arms from the Reagan administration, Bush HW, and Donald Rumsfield) The invasion in Iraq arguably took away from the invasion of Afghanistan, increased terrorist breeding ground and propaganda, and maybe did not make us safer (many worldwide terrorist attacks in the South Pacific, Turkey, London and Spain happened even if none after 9-11 on US soil per se but certainly our Western and other allies and citizens) It was not necessary to invade Iraq to fight terrorism.
8. There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The so called WMDs. It is not implausible that George W Bush was manipulated or manipulated intelligence data to justify the end goal of the invasion. There are plenty of ex-CIA and intelligence (Naval etc) that indicate that the WMD thing was not taken as seriously as Bush thought and that the strategic value of invading Iraq for geographic security (oil stability etc) as well as the Global War on Terror. This is not being judgmental after the fact or sitting in my or a Lazyboy chair (I have seen combat, did the person who wrote that comment?)
9. To argue that Middle Eastern Christians are not worse off by any measure is not a fact, in Iraq and elswhere because of the rise (a relatively new phenomena)of Islamic fundamentalism as well as more strident Zionism and an apathy on behalf of the United States and lack of strength from the Vatican and France, is laughable. Iraq, now, is far worse for Christians than under Saddam.
The problem with some of the posters are:
1. They equate Orthodox or even conservative Catholicism with political conservativism.
2. There is a quasi Americanist heresy (which I am sympathetic too)that dogmatizes US interests as inherently moral or per se right. This may or may not be the case although it may be most or some of the time or should be or I may want it to be.
3. There is a lack of equality or equity, consciously or subconsciously on death of people who are not from the US and ultimately people who are not white (I think the reason we did not discuss Sudan earlier or did not do much if anything) It is easy to dismiss the suffering of others. The dignity of the individual who is darker, poorer, or even uncivilized is not always recognized.
4. A lack of care of suffering or death generally.
5. There is a jingoistic pro-Americanism that justifiably at first does not want to criticize Bush or US foreign policy.
6. There is an influence including in US conservative Catholic circles of neo-conservative Chickenhawks, who want to invade everywhere, without a plan, many times arguably and allegedly putting Israeli interests first--not my view but an intersting one put forward by accurate predictors of the first Iraq war from the Univesity of Chicago and Harvard, I think it is more big oil interests (who have promoted and funded terrorism far more than Saddam ever did)
These neo-cons view soldiers as toy soldiers and the deaths through high tech bombings and our own weapons of mass destruction of 100s of thousands of people, the destruction of infrastructure necessary for the health and safety of people, and daily chaos and strife as necessary for some vague geo-political end.
The oil producing rich despotic decadent nations and the big waspy corporations raping the US taxpayer through no bid contracts in Iraq are running this game, and many good Catholic conservatives buy into it by trying to do good and defending their country, at least with words.

When we gloat over the death of anyone we embrace the culture of death and distance ourselves from Life himself.
That comment is typical of the contemporary Catholic mindset that effectively worships Life itself as God rather than the Author of Life as God. It is the same mindset that, in the name of a "consistent ethic of life," ignores the innocent victims of evil in favor of the perpetrators of evil (just look at the Church's moral revisionism concerning capital punishment).
Fr. Blake, I suggest you read the Old Testamnent, where God has established His standards and demands for justices (demands and standards which Christ Himself does not contradict or countermand). Those standards include punishing the evil and protecting the innocent from them.
I not only rejoice in Zarqawi's death, I prayed for it. I also pray for the deaths of bin Laden, Zarahiri and the other leaders of terrorist groups who wish to sacrifice the innocent to their pernicious ideologies.
It'a about time more Christians so prayed and discarded the sanctimonious drivel exhibited by Fr. Blake.

"Many of the Palestinian cases we are doing for the Israelis and deportations (including US citizen cases) are with secret evidence."
"Secret evidence"? I'm tempted to ask how you could possibly know this if it is secret, but I think I will just suggest that you loosen the tin foil.
"Lindh was not fighting US troops." Your secret will be safe with us.

"Look at the Amnesty International Website."
Oh my gosh...no thanks. Once is enough. Talk about "Hate America First".
"...do you really think that Arabs are not more mad at us..."
Holy cow... I expect that Kruschev got mad at us over Cuba, too. Hitler was probably mad about D-Day... since when is the aim of our foreign policy to make sure that our ENEMIES are happy?
If they are not our enemies, they need to make that plain by renouncing and defeating the terrorists among them.
I hope they ARE mad, not to mention frustrated. I'm mad at them. There is (and has been for a long time) far too much support for the Islamo-fascists among the Muslim populace. They may not care for terrorism, per se, but they like the idea of the West getting a black eye, so they tolerate the murdering monsters.

Anonymous, I'd refute more, but my fingers are getting tired. Returning now to reality.

"In terms of our own nation, trials without evidnece or accusers." Name one.
"The suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus." I seem to have missed it when that was put into effect. (Could you possibly be thinking of Lincoln during the Civil War?)
"the Jonathan Walker Lindh case". Captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting against US troops.

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Michael seems to have proof and facts to back up his assertions. Bill and Co. do not seem to have any facts. I have googled it and they do cite Vatican, UN, this John Hopkins studies etc.
What proof are you looking for? There seem to be a lot of proof out there.
That Christians are being persecuted and are leaving Iraq. That is a fact. (Numerous media reports, and go on Middle Eastern Christian websites)
That the death toll for civilians on this invasion and occupation is at least 100,000 half of which are women and children. (The John Hopkins study)
There were no WMDS. (Bush even admits that)
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
Iraq had minimal amount to do with Al-Queda.
Iraq was not the worse player in the region or the world. I agree with another callers view to invade the Sudan. Iraq is mild compared to Sudan, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Ukraine under Stalin. Iraq was a bastion of religous freedom and womens rights when compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and/or many other Islamic and other nations.
The view that the invasion of Iraq was not a good mood, that it is not going well, and that it was not well thought out or planned is not from the goo goos but from Sen Hagel (actual veteran Republican) and General Zinni and to a lesser extent Colin Powell.
It is not Ted Kennedy but scores of retired Generals on the replacement of the arrogant Donald Rumsfield.
Just go on the stock market or read reports of quarterly stock reports or journals of politically connected companies like Blackwater, Lincoln/Iraqex, Haliburton, Brown and Root.
The merchants of death. The profiteers of war.
Also, just read the elements of Just War, read Aquinas, and figure out proportionality etc.
Iraq was not a threat to the US. Iraq certainly had links to terrorists (as does the US) but less links than Saudi, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. None of which we invaded.
The person who wants the proof that more Arabs are mad at us after the invasion in Iraq only needs to read some polls, go look at Al Jazeera, watch the UN and the statements from other Islamic nations, or go to local area Mosques and talk to Arabs here. That is such an absured statement.

Sorry,
I type too quickly.

Actually, ZarQawi was in Afghanistan prior to our invasion in 2002, but fled to Iraq, where he received support from Saddam, who knew he Bin Laden's associate. How's that for a link between those who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam?

Look, we are none of us experts, and I agree that the situation is extremely complex and "nuanced". I am not the kind of person who enjoys the prospect of war.
I just think this whole idea that "Bush lied" is the big lie. It was cooked up by the same people (politicians) who supported the Iraq war initially, but then saw a chance to make some political hay by playing ignorant and claiming that Bush "misled" them. The KNOW better, because they had the same intelligence that everyone else did.
Why does an entire third of the country now turn coat? They sit there on their soggy La-Z-Boy derriere and chant their "No WMDs" mantra, talk about how Saddam was really quite nice to some people, and how we should get out of Iraq NOW, when they were likely part of the large majority that supported the war in the first place.
You can't un-invade a country. There is no magic "do-over" button. We are IN Iraq now, and raking over pre-war intelligence NOW is about as relevant as analyzing the Nixon-Kennedy debates. The people who have the real responsibility for making these decisions do not have the LUXURY of second guessing and playing pretend. Pulling out of Iraq COLD, would make us all, not chickenhawks, but just plain chickens. It's disgusting.
We have WEDDED OURSELVES to the fate of Iraq. It baffles me that anyone thought war should be simple and easy. It gets hard and we BUG OUT? Shameful.
As I said in an earlier post, many will support a war in theory, but only if it meets the following requirements:
* Victory must be assured (victory being understood as universal approval from our both our allies and our enemies).
* There must be guarantees that no civilians will be harmed. Failure to achieve this makes the U.S. guilty of war crimes.
* There must be no U.S. troop casualties. Any loss of U.S. personnel will be taken as a sign that Things are Going Badly. Only bad guys should be harmed.
* We must know exactly how long the conflict will take. We are a busy people.
* There should be a clearly set spending limit. Any overage will deducted from the next war.
* We reserve the right to Change our Mind in the middle of any conflict. We consider that the above rules are binding, just not on us.

That should be "prove or disprove".

Maybe this will help.
evidence, n. 1. ground for belief; that which tends to prove of disprove something; proof. (The Random House College Dictionary, revised edition, copyright 1984).

"...the War in Iraq makes Arabs hate us more." I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but show us the evidence!

"...there have been specific incidence of loss of liberty because of the Patriot Act..."
We are still waiting for someone to tell us one liberty he has lost due to the Patriot Act. Just one. So far, no takers.

Michael, thank you for your tacit admission that you can't back up your assertions (which you claim are not assertions) with evidence.

"Which of these terrorists was linked to Al Queda or 9-11? NONE"
So what? Your point is?

Tim, there have been specific incidence of loss of liberty because of the Patriot Act, it is late and I am tired but will post more later.

There is no doubt that Islamic terrorism is bad. The problem is the US is fostering and increasing it through the Iraq invasion. I am normally a Repub, I like Sen Chuck Hagel for Prez, but Sen Biden makes sense on Iraq

For more info
www.jihadwatch.org

"What terrorists did Iraq harbor????"
Here are a few-
# Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing... given sanctuary in Baghdad and lived there for years afterward.
# Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988... was taken into custody by U.S. Marines in Baghdad.
# Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death in his state-supplied home.
# Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship... U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody.
# Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Deceased.
# Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific... currently serving a triple life sentence in Colorado's Supermax federal lockup.
# Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis.

Thomas-
Wow, everything you said was wrong. That might be a record.
We did not invade Iraq to liberate Christians there.
Also-
"No one in the intelligence world not in the US or other countries seriously believed that Iraq had serious Weapons of Mass Destruction or deliverly capabilities."
That is rot. Every functioning intelligence service in the world believed Saddam had WMDs. Where are they now?
Anyway, we have been over this in other posts. Zarqawi is dead. Hurrah. If you don't find that to be good news, I can't help you.

Afghanistan was absolutely necessary, Iraq was not.
What terrorists did Iraq harbor????
Iran, Afghanistan before and under the Taliban, Lybia, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (and perhaps others) harbored terrorists.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded terrorists.
But their were no Iraqis on those planes in 9-11 and Al-Queda and Iraq under Sadam were not on the same team, and did not share the same philosophy.
The 100,000 figure is supposed to be deaths by us the US by bombings and "collateral" damage not by Zarqawi and insurgents. Even with smart bombs, when we bomb the hell out of people and use the high tech weapons we have THEY KILL PEOPLE AND ARE NOT ALWAYS exact. YES, they hide in Mosques and schools and homes with children BUT nobody invited us to Iraq, it is THEIR country NOT ours. Gettysburg was a Civil War.
If the body count is so low, it was LOWER under Saddam and that demonstrates that while Saddam was bad he was not as bad as the Sudan. Let's invade the Sudan. We as Americans tend to desensitize pain and suffering that is people of color, people farther away.
I had a friend, a very good man, who after the civilian contractors (very highly paid former SEALS who the Special Forces Army guys said hurt their hearts and mind psy-ops) got killed in Fallujah wrote a letter to the editor FLATTEN FALLUJAH(he is a convert to Catholicism and a good person and dad) but his comment I think was wrong, he did not think of the death of civilians from flattening Fallujah only that they brutally killed our guys and hung them up.
But they were in their country. Our military (watch the PBS Frontline episode not from the PBS perspective but from the US Military perspective of the privatization of war and contractors affecting negatively our military objectives) Killing our guys are bad BUT destroying a city or using Nukes (as I hear frequently in bar talk and at barber shops in the US) is evil to destroy people and civilizations with Nukes or our own high tech Weapons of Mass Destruction. This may be rhetoric but reflects a lot of people's opinion.
We do not always recognize the pain and suffering of others. We do not always realize the death count. In Vietnam the US Troops (which arguably was a Just Cause and Communism and dominoe theory were real) lost about 56,000 but the Vietnamese lost MILLIONS.
Certainly the Iraqis themselves deserve the "credit" for hurting other Iraqis who are Christians BUT we WE the US created the environment for that to happen and we WE the US are NOT protecting minorities or Christians. Saddam Hussein did protect Christians, allow them to practice their faith in public, build churches, participate in government, the new government has allowed bombing of churches, kidnapping of clerics, raping of nuns, and killing of Christians, and because of this situation they are leaving this country to Syria, Jordan and Lebanon (all of where they are more accepting) and if they can to Cyprus, Greece, France, Canada and the US (some to Australia). The current government that we imposed and the situation we created is a Shia dominated more religious government and de facto culture and situation that is anti-Christian and less tolerant. The situation is worse. We helped create it.

The war is not justified. Not under the Aquinas/Catholic Church JUST WAR doctrine.
1. Iraq was not/is not a threat to the United States. Iraq does not border us. Iraq did not invade us. Iraq did not declare war against us. Iraq does not have weapons capability to even attack us. Iraq did not threaten our economic interests.
2. There were no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. None from Africa. The big gun from that Canadian Catholic guy was never completed. The Nuclear capability was taken out by Israelis. The Chemical weapons used in Iran and against the Kurds and Iran (which we knew about and helped funded) were awful but fairly run of the mill and not biological nor DNA nor Atomic/Nuclear and no deliverly systems. This is not liberals or anti-war activisits it is former CIA and most security/intelligence analysts. No one in the intelligence world not in the US or other countries seriously believed that Iraq had serious Weapons of Mass Destruction or deliverly capabilities. (under this theory we should invade Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or our allies South Africa and Israel)
3. Iraq had minimal to links to terrorism (at least not vis a vis the US but certainly vis a vis Israel/Palestine). We now have all their internal security documents and there was supposedly some meetings during the war (more after the US invaded) and a meeting with one of the 9-11 bombers and the Iraqi embassy in Prague (possibly). There is no link between the Sunni Baath Secularist Sadamm Hussein and September 11, 2001 nor Al-Queda nor Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden in fact did not like Saddam and they prefer a non Baath government which they had thanks to us. Iraq is not even linked to Iranian terrorism (obviously) The only link to terrorism was to money given to PLO and families of suicide bombers (yes this is bad but does not justify a US invasion and our allies like Saudi also give money to terrorism more direclty and to the Palestians and in more amounts and we don't invade Saudi Arabia) There are no links AT ALL to 9-11.
4. Saddam Hussein was MUCH more "progressive", and "tolerant" (even though a brutal dictator) to his immediate neighbors and women could vote, Christians could exercise their religion in public (in Saudi you will get whipped if you have a Rosary, death penalty if a Muslim converts to Islam), women could vote, women could drive, Christians were in government, FIND A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN IRAN OR SAUDI ARABIA.
We did not invade Saudi or Iran? Only Iraq.
So NO THREAT TO THE US,
NO LINK TO TERRORISM
5. Iraq was BAD, but is/was Iraq under Hussein worse than Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, or other great tragedies like the genocide in Cambodia (2 million or so something like 1/2 the population) or the Soviet Union under Stalin at least 7 million Ukrainians. Saddam Hussein is not the greatest killer by a long shot. So the "liberation" (who asked us to liberate them) of Iraq based on that Saddam was bad does not even measure up to other parts of the world. If being bad is the measure, we should of gone into Sudan a long time ago.
6. Strategic importance: Iraq was already contained. It had no designs on Kuwait or Iran anymore. It was not a strategic threat. They would sell oil to anyone to make money.
7. Proportionality: To enforce a UN weapons resolution, or to stop wrongdoing we killed 100,000 CIVILIANS (half of whom are women and children) many more combatants and left the country in a mess.
8. Afghanistan. Again not liberals but General Zinni, and other Generals think that Iraq was poorly planned, poorly executed, and took away from Afghanistan and really fighting the war on terror.
I do not want to be in a war that
1. Is for personal family vengence to vindicate the father and former President of our current President and his powerful oligarchy.
2. The theoretical designs of the chickenhawk Neo-cons who want to invade everywhere but on the whole never saw combat or put theirselves, children or loved ones at risk. The US cannot invade everywhere and is not an Empire.
3. The Personal wealth of Dick Cheney, Haliburton, Brown and Root, and all the contractors that have pervasive fraud (read the Wall Street Journal articles on fraud, whistleblowing) at taxpayer expense billions and billions making an economic oligarchy rich off of war. It was not a Democrat nor a liberal who warned of the Military Industrial Complex BUT Republic Presiden Eisenhower at the end of his Presidency and the former Supreme Commander of Allied Troops in WWII.
I doubt this war was necessary. I doubt that we are in a good position right now.

"What Bush said to justify Iraq II are assertions. Not fact and proven not to be fact."
No. Some of what he said may not have been proved to be fact, but it has not been "proven NOT to be fact". Hussein's regime harbored and supported terrorists, and that is a fact.
Afghanistan is getting rather sticky, as well. Attacks continue. Does anyone seriously suggest we should have stayed out of of there?
"I have a Masters in Middle Eastern Studies at a prominent University"
I'm sorry, but those propaganda mills are a national disgrace. A University Middle Eastern Studies department is not the place to go looking for the truth.
Now, you may be right about the the plight of Christians in Iraq, but you Masters degree is, to me, neither here nor there.
Incidentally, just how much responsibility do the people of Iraq bear for the treatment of the Christians among them?

"It was the VATICAN and the UN that estimated that 1 million children lost their lives between Iraq I and Iraq II"
Again, one can't lay that at the feet of Bush 43. The UN sanctions were always a horrid failure.
""If based only on the fact that he conspired to assassinate a sitting US President." Can you give any serious evidence?"
This is from HNN (History News Network) which has more comprehensive information here:
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
"On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush."

I was in an onsite where a 1 star general who was in Iraq helping create the government early on in was asked a question about:
1. Do the Kurds want an independent state? (which the current constitution would preclude)
and
2. How were minorities specifically Assyrians (who do not consider themselves Assyrians similar and historically justified despite a similiar phenotype to how the (some) Lebanese consider themselves Phoenicians and not Arab, Assyrians are a separate (nation) people descended from Babylonians and distinct genetically and historically from Arabs) and Christians generally (Arab Christians non-Assyrians) How were minorities especially Christians being treated?
On question #1 the General said that the Kurds don't want a separate state, which is absurd and in denial of the US. If we are to blame Saddam (and we should) for mistreatment of Kurds we should also blame our NATO ally Turkey (which also has been brutal although they view it by necessity) THE KURDS WANT AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND DO USE "TERRORISM". The General was delusional, in denial, or giving the party line to make sure everyone was motivated.
On question #2: The General and much of the "Intelligence" apparatus surrounding Iraq is not aware about and does not perceive the Iraqi Christians and strategically important and minority rights are less protected under the current de facto Shia regime than under S.H.
Recognizing the current dire situation is not a justification for S.H. Zarqawi or anything else.
Christians are not even on the radar screen.
Bill may feel the need to be "gauche" and want facts or evidence and not "assertions. Well, I have been to Iraq and am in the military.
Moreover, I have a Masters in Middle Eastern Studies at a prominent University paid for by the Army. My wife is part Assyrian (in union with Rome although most of her family is not) My wife hates Saddam and most of her family were at least initially in support of the invasion. The civilian death count in this Operation is probably at least 100,000 since the inception. I don't know about the accuracy of the numbers on the Embargo after Operation Desert Storm but there was a lot of death and destruction that we caused. What the invasion stopped (it did not stop terrorism) and what the end goal is (we are in a Vietnam like occupational state and Vietnam was at least to stop communism, we are creating a more religious "fundamentalist" state with closer ties to Iran). There is no political or strategic goal in site and we caused a lot of, in some cases, unnecessary destruction.
It is good that Zarqawi is dead. The future may hold good in the end for the people in Iraq for us BUT the interim is Hell. The various Christian community(ies) are in a greater Hell in Iraq now than they were before the war.

It was the VATICAN and the UN that estimated that 1 million children lost their lives between Iraq I and Iraq II from the Embargo and destruction left from bombings.
Apparently it is John Hopkins (the US does not keep accurate numbers at least not that it makes public) Univesity that made the study of 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq II since 2003.
These are not assertions. What Bush said to justify Iraq II are assertions. Not fact and proven not to be fact.

Bill912, these are not assertions again since this is a blog and I am not writing and academic paper, I didn't cite everything but these are NOT assertions.
The Christian population in Iraq after 1900 to about 1990 was about 15 to 20% which can be checked through Enclyopedia(s) as well as census figures internally in Iraq, much of it is on the Internet. Up until recently it was nearly 10% and it is shrinking literally any day. Do a Google Church on Assyrians or Chaldeans and you can find any links about it. Do a Yahoo news church and you can find stories about bombings of churches (unknown in the days of Saddam), raping of nuns, killings of Christians, kidnapping of priests and even Bishops (like the Melkite Patriarch that was kidnapped although in that case subsequently released), and news stories on emigration/immigration. These are not assertions but facts. So census, UN Reports, Vatican reports, new stories all can tell you this---Moreover, go to any Church with Iraqi Christians and ask them what is going on now, if they left recently or have family there.
THIS IS NOT AN ASSERTION CHRISTIANS ARE WORSE OFF NOW. What don't you undertand?

Michael, how about some evidence? Making assertions is not evidence.

"VATICAN official estimates just with the BOYCOTT indicated that 500,000 to a 1,000,000 CHILDREN died by EMBARGOING food"
Are you referring to the UN sanctions? I always thought those were stupid, as well as cruel. They can hardly be lumped in with the Iraq War casualties.
Let's say 100,000 Iraqi deaths is too low. Let's say there have been 200,000 (I don't generally put much stock in the speculations of freelance skeptics). How many of these are the result of sectarian (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, rather than being attributable to Coalition actions? Are we supposed to count all of Zarqawi's victims as OUR victims? That's absurd.
Historically (as I said) these numbers are low, for a war. We lost 50,000 in three days at Gettysburg. Have you any idea how many have died in Sudan?
I would not minimize any of these deaths, but this wish for a sanitized war, wherein nobody is killed is fantasy.
I expect things were pretty bad in post-war Japan, as well, but that hardly means we should have given up and gone home. Just the opposite.

Previous post:

Next post: