they got al-zarqawi

[El Blanco]

I'm not one to celebrate a person's death, no matter how big a scumbag they are, but I can't see this as a bad thing.

What does this mean for Iraq? The insurgency? Islamicism in general?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Pff, you mean the CIA decided to stop using him as their puppet. :rollyeyesomg

I'm not sure what this means. I don't know that celebrations are in order, since some other low-life could probably just step in his place and "lead" things.

I wish this meant that the entire so-called insurgency folded, but I somehow doubt it.

[ziggytrix]

Even if some other scumbag steps in and takes control of terrorists, Zarqawi was a very smart scumbag. Maybe the next guy won't be as insidiously clever.

It's a good thing for Iraq that this guy is history.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I dunno, is there an overwhelming amount of evidence that Zarqawi really had much control over things, or was it more like he saw a riot, stepped in front, and called it a parade....?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he is out of the picture. If nothing else, he was at least a symbolic figure that could strike a blow to the so-called insurgency.

I guess we'll see.

[mburbank]

"I'm not one to celebrate a person's death, no matter how big a scumbag they are, but I can't see this as a bad thing."
El Blanco


well said, sir.

[ziggytrix]

According to this story there are at least 100 different 'insurgent' groups in Iraq.

Zarqawi was the front-man of the _foreign_ insurgency in Iraq. Now that's only like 10% of the insurgents there according to some retired general I just heard on the radio, but it was the most organized group, he said.

I'd bet this will reduce the number of foreign fighters coming into Iraq. And it probably means that group calling itself 'Al Queda in Iraq' is going to be very disorganized for a while.

[mburbank]

Okay, this is just wierd.

I just saw a news picture of the press conference where they announced Z's death.

They have a photo of him dead, so people will know it's true. Fine.

The photo is enlarged. No problem, you want folks to see it.

The photo... is matted and framed in a large, museum quality, gilt frame.

Here's what that means. Someone staff member got told "I need you to take this shot, have it matted and framed. Something nice, tasteful. I'm think maybe a gold three tired molding for the frame. Nothing too grand, but not some cheap ass black metal frame, either."

Is this just some sort of run of the mill military oddness? Do they use a lot of big ass gold frames in their briefings, or just when somebody got killed, or only when a big deal terrorist leader gets killed? Is their some psy opps general out their saying "For this to have the most weighty propeganda effect, the corpse photo must be dispalyed in an expensive art frame."

Put THAT on ebay and I'd bid on it. What an oddity. I bet the on lie casino that bought Shatners kidney stone and the Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwhich would pay big bucks for it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'd like to keep a running count of all the "special place in hell" responses....

[Abcdxxxx]

This will only serve to further radicalize more young Muslim*!!!!

[ziggytrix]

*???

[Abcdxxxx]

well i've been informed that these muslims* are not muslims. they're just crazy people who spend a lot of time at mosques, quoting the koran, and recruit through these religious centers, while talking about muhhamed, jihad, martyrdom, shari'a, infidels.... there's absolutely no connection to islam. these muslims* are not muslims. i'm glad i had a chance to clarify that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, this is strictly a police matter.

[ziggytrix]

Oh, you mean like those Christians* who picket soldiers funerals with the signs saying "Thank GOD for IEDs" and shit?

I guess you've got a point there.

Maybe you should just call them terrorists, and try not to generalize all Muslims as being like these people?

I dunno, maybe I should just ignore you. You're sort of a dick.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ziggy, does this have anything to do with radical Islam???

[ziggytrix]

I would hope a mainstream religious individual is justified in claiming the actions of a radical zealot are not reflective of the mainstream's belief.

Otherwise any time some shithead did something in the name of _____ then _____'s everywhere would have to answer for that shithead's actions.

I guess it's easier to generalize and stereotype though, and since I don't believe in anything it doesn't affect me, so carry on.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Was that a yes?

abc never said every muslim everywhere in the world supports terrorism. I think that was your natural assumption. However I think there is an effort by some/many/several to turn this into a collection of isolated incidents, with no prevailing theme or link.

Not all of Islam is responsible for terrorism, but Islamic terrorism is the product of Islam.

tis the reason for the season.

[ziggytrix]

That just seems so wishy-washy.

"I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, but if there weren't any Muslims, there wouldn't be any Muslim terrorists *wink wink nudge nudge* I'm not a bigot at all!"

There are prevailing themes and links, and to try and lay it all at Islam is shortsighted, ignorant, and maybe just a tad disingenuous, though it is incredibly easy and convenient to think of it in those terms.

If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal. Zarqawi was just a thug in a Jordanian prison until he met a cleric who showed him a better route to power. Before he died, he was urging Sunnis to step up the fight against Shiites. Can you tell me where in the Koran it says you're supposed to judge or kill other Muslims, or is this conflict maybe not really about Islam at all?

[Abcdxxxx]

What, the aestrix wasn't enough?

Would it make sense to dissassociate the IRA , or Kahane Chai from their religious interests? So how does it serve the conversation to white wash the context of these crimes by calling Islamic terrorist, simply terrorist? We can't even all agree what distinguishes a terrorist act, from a hate crime, from a random homicide.

This might sound wacky, but there's conversation to be had even beyond the accepted truth of a statement like "Not all Muslims are terrorists"...... maybe you're the one struggling with the concept if you keep having to bring it up in every terrorism thread. It's not a revelation.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Can you tell me where in the Koran it says you're supposed to judge or kill other Muslims

Of course, when the the "not all Muslims are bad" disclaimer doesn't go anywhere, try asking for Koranic quotations. That's always good for some clarification.

You really don't think the Koran has verses devoted to judging Muslims who stray? Since you can only seem to relate to this conversation through the terms of moral equivalency, I'll remind you that most every religion would consider that one of the worst sins of all. Care to argue how the Koran is any different? Why don't you tell us what the Koran says about disobediant Muslims who refuse to follow the Koran?

[ziggytrix]

You're the one who brought it up with your fuckin asterisk.

If you are so painfully aware that not all Muslims are Jihadists, then why to you continue to use the word Muslim in place of Jihadist at every opportunity? Is it becuase you are a religious bigot, because you have an agenda, or just because you're a dick?

[Abcdxxxx]

First of all, what the fuck is a Jihadist? The word Jihad is so tied in to Muslim culture, that by using that term in place of terrorist, it is YOU who is blanketing all Muslims. Jihad means many different things.

Secondly, the aestrisk was in response to the idea that Muslim radicals aren't real Muslims, but now you're not arguing we need to differentiate, you're arguing we need to stop identifying these people altogether, because it makes you uncomfortable probably because you're the one scared you might be a bigot.

It's odd though... you keep trying to assign religious bigotry to the things you imagine I've said, but you completely overlook bigotry everywhere else it appears in this forum. So you don't like me, and I'm a dick.... but don't get distracted now - what do you think? Are Islamic terrorists actually Muslims!?

[ziggytrix]

OK sure, before I get distracted - I think that, like any real fanatic, these cocksuckers think they are, in fact, the only REAL Muslims.

Now, let's not ignore everything else you had to say. It would be such a shame to ignore any precious wisdom you let spell from your fingers today. We are both familiar with the word 'jihad' but that's not waht I was referring to. Jihadism (with a capital 'J') is a movement that started in Egypt in the 70s. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, being the resident authority on all things Middle Eastern, but if not, read this and this and then tell me everything they got wrong, since I'm sure you're a much more reliable authority on the matter than these Brookings Institute wannabes. But from my understanding, whatever word you wanna use: Al Qaeda, Salfi-Jihadist, Islamo-fascist, whatever - there's a story that goes much deeper than "disaffected Muslim youths". Unless, of course, you are totally uninterested in all that pro-Muslim apologist rubbish.

And just where do you imagine I'm arguing that there is no need to differentiate?! I'm arguing that you seemingly choose not to differentiate in your postings, and get bothered any time someone calls you on it.

Because I was busy at work today, I for the most part didn't read your previous posts, so I would like to respond that YES, disassociating the IRA from their religious background is essential, unless you want to argue that members of the IRA are representative of Irish Catholics in general.

Nor would it be productive to talk about violence throught the history of Judaism when discussing Kahane Chai (a figure with whom I'm not familiar). Not unless you had some sort of chip on your sholder for the entire religion which that particular extremist claims to represent. This is exactly my point!


But if you'd rather talk about something else, fine go ahead. Tell me more about this rampant bigotry I overlook (assuming I actually read it) everywhere else on the forum.

Or if you prefer, elaborate on your statement that "This will only serve to further radicalize more young Muslim*!!!!" I'm so sorry for distracting you from your original point, please don't let me distract you from your noble goal of educating this forum, and carry on just as though I didn't ask about your clever little asterisk.

Or you can just point out that all these sects with all their agendas are, in fact, real Muslims, and agree that the real problem here is that real Muslims are just plain mean. And we killed one of the really mean ones today! It doesn't get any mroe real than that!


Jesus H. Christ, you'd think I actually gave a fuck.

[Abcdxxxx]

Um. Well if you're not reading my posts, that would explain why you're reacting to things you only imagined.

The 2 articles you linked address a variation of Salafism. They do not support your hazy claim that "Jihadism (with a capital 'J') is a movement that started in Egypt in the 70s." because simply put - that's incorrect. Perhaps you mean the organization Islamic Jihad which formed in the 70's, but they grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood which originated in the late 20's. Muhammad Abduh was Egyptian, and is credited with sparking some reformation of the movement that became Salafism, but he died after the turn of the century. Sayyid Qutb was widely influential, but dead by 1966. Anyway, that only accounts for one of many groups with varied and conflicting ideologies, that believe in violent forms of Jihad. Since not all Salafists are terrorists, and not all terrorists of the Islamic faith are Salafist, or Wahhabists - that doesn't really take us anywhere productive.

Do people use the term Jihadist? Sure. But, if your goal is to help pinpoint the bad Muslims and seperate them from the general good, then you're using the most self defeating terminology possible, since most all Muslims practice some harmless types of self reflexive Jihad.

We're discussing religious campaigns utilizing terrorist means. I think it's misleading to sanitize it, and it's juvenile to claim anyone here is suggesting these groups are representative of an entire religion "in general". If a Rabbi, a Priest, or a Mufti are ordering bombings, then it's impossible to have an educated discourse on the topic with someone who insists on seperating their actions from their beliefs.

By your response, it appears we can at least agree we're talking about people of the Islamic* faith. Maybe you missed the posts here putting that into question, claiming otherwise.

[mburbank]

Violent religous extremism is the same. While at this moment in history there is a noteable amount of VRE associated with Islam, it doesn't strike me as a different phenomena when Hindus set people on fire and it hasn't been such a long time since Christians had their fair share of VRE that they have any reason to think they have evolved beyond it.

There is a human tendency to believe God's message is "Kill everyone who does not believe exactly as you do." This is a common historical meme across all periods.

I would suggest that all religous fundamentalism and intolerance are on this spectrum (not equal Kevin, not the same, just on the same side of a very long, but dangerously slippery slope).

This is why I believe the best wy to end terrorism is to kill everyone who is not a Unitarian. You have been warned.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And hey guys, what about the Crusades and Oklahoma City? it's all the same.