Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by stubeeef, May 24, 2005.
Honestly its probably just the CIA defacing the web site as a psy-op.
Could be! Would be a dangerous rouse though, could backfire if it is CIA. Of course he is not dead, but no one wants a martar like this. The fact he is incapicatated is good, but beware the wounded animal.
A circumstance where Zarqawi can get what he deserves and at the same time have his martyrdom called into question is if he's caught in surveillance video or photos having sex with someone with whom he isn't married (such as a female Iraqi prostitute or a male). That wouldn't be a sure thing though because many people (who don't know what Occam's Razor is and prefer stupid conspiracy theories) would instantly conclude that the photos or tapes were doctored.
Anyway, I'm disgusted at the sentiment expressed in quotes in the linked article. There's no way Zarqawi is anywhere near the example of the Prophet Muhammad. Zarqawi's tactics of guerilla warfare, sneak attacks and suicide bombing are patently sinful; they are forbidden by Islam. If I had the chance I'd be happy to dispose of him and bin Laden.
We are in a war against terrorism. He is responsible for the loss of life just like Hussein, deserves the same treatment. In war lives are lost.
Most of Al Queda are just thugs and in the Taliban heyday they were raging hypocrites.
The best thing for the US would be for him to be captured and then put on a long long show trial, preferably with ineffective defense. We'll do it up like the Iran Contra hearings where the whole purpose is a public humiliation and pillory.
Get witnesses who had him wiping his butt with the Koran and having sex with a pig. Totally and utterly discredit him and then stuff him in a jail for a couple years.
A much better warning to others than sticking his head on pike.
We are in a war against certain terrorists, not against all terrorism. Responsibility for loss of lives is not a strike against a person or an entity; the issue is whether the loss of lives was just. For example, it is just to kill the guerrillas, just as it is unjust for the guerrillas to kill.
I agree, and I'll add that they and their sympathizers are still raging hypocrites. I debate the sympathizers whenever I get the chance. It's so easy to shoot them down (rhetorically) regarding the (lack of legitimate) religious basis for their support of the thugs.
As for how to deter terrorists from taking up arms, a show trial won't do anything because the extremist spin machine will contort it for its purposes. What will work is encouraging anti-wahhabi scholarship. It would have to derive its credibility by faithfulness to the original sources of knowledge (scriptures and traditions).
What most non-Muslims (and many Muslims) don't understand is that the "conservatives" and "extremists," despite what they claim, do not advocate a pure form of Islam. Wahhabis and like-minded Muslim sects have a literal interpretation of everything. There are others who have a symbolic interpretation of everything. I believe there are Christian and Jewish sects who are similarly distinguished or characterized by such perspectives (literal vs. symbolic). Anyhow, the folks on one side or the other of the debate end up messing things up by being either way too rigid (wahhabis) or way too loose (symbolists). That materially changes Islam and therefore is not true Islam. The middle path, between literal and symoblic approaches, is.