June 13, 2006

"If you are sane, come celebrate the moment with us, but if not, get prepared to mourn more demons."

Mohammed Fadhil of Iraq the Model has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the reaction to Zarqawi's death -- by Iraqi and non-Iraq Arabs.

16 comments:

Goesh said...

Strong words indeed coming from people who have been gassed and put through plastic shredders. If Omar is correct, that 90% of non-Iraqi Arabs regard zaqawri as a hero, then we certainly are in the throes of a clash of civilizations, and the clash is just getting started. How much can we cheapen life and still call ourselves distinct from 'them', the other side? They regard us as butchers and monsters every bit as much for celebrating the death of zaqawri that was accompanied by the death of civilians. There is nary a tear shed for the young wife and the child killed along side of zaqawri. He sawed off heads, we disintegrate with bombs and claim to hold the moral trump card in it all. The heroes are the victors only because they can trumpet their success and moral righteousness the loudest and to a certain extent, silence the voices of the vanquished. It is a nasty, dirty business we have all gotten ourselves into and I see no end in sight, nor can I see our grandchildren holding any of us in very high esteem.

ignacio said...

Some of the latest actions by Islamic fundamentalists: killing those who sell ice because Mohammed had no ice in his time, or killing high school boys wearing shorts because shorts are "indecent" -- may signify that the movement is in fact going insane.

Tibore said...

Good for the WSJ! They basically just reprinted his June 11th posting from his blog, but it's a posting that deserves wider distribution. It's one of his best.

dick said...

goesh,

How long can we sit on the side and wait for them to decide to get really serious about forcing us all to submit to their religion or die? That is what they have already told us is their plan. Given what we have seen do you doubt that is what they want? Given also the way they treat each other do you want to be on the receiving end of their wrath?

It just reminds me of what the doctor told me a couple of years ago. I could smoke or I could live, the choice was up to me. I have not had a cigarette since. The non-Iraqi Arabs have told us their plans. We can either sit idly by and watch them do this as they already have in parts of Europe and Australia and wait for their next attack here or we can beard them in their own land. You can claim all the high ground and not be the victors or you can protect your own family and country. YMMV but that is the choice that will at some point have to be made. Do it now before the nukes or later when they have the nukes.

In the meantime the death of a Zarqawi is being celebrated by those who suffered from his actions. That might just tell you a little bit about what is planned for us in the long run.

Goesh said...

Im all for making war very, very nasty, brutish and short but there is no profit in that for either side, now is there?

Peter said...

I don't mourn Zarqawi for a moment, but I don't "celebrate" his death either. I don't celebrate any death, and I don't consider it "sane" to do so.

PatCA said...

I think, Goesh, there is a profit. The enemy is playing out what it thinks is a morally superior ideological and tactical war. Every battle, every victory, counts. Every Muslim they kill, every town they ruin, counts. The Iraqis celebrated because their tormentor was brought low. He did not become another Saddam. He lost. So maybe too can his ideology be brought low. That's worth celebrating.

Glenn Howes said...

goesh said... There is nary a tear shed for the young wife and the child killed along side of zaqawri.

Unless there has been an update of which I'm unaware (always a possibility), reports of a child dying in the bombing were incorrect according to Major General Bill Caldwell.

Elizabeth said...

non-Iraqi Arabs have told us their plans. We can either sit idly by and watch them do this as they already have in parts of Europe and Australia and wait for their next attack here or we can beard them in their own land

This expresses the core cognitive dissonance with our being in Iraq. We're not bearding "them" in "their own land" as it is the NON-Iraqi Arabs that foster the idea of jihad against Westerners. If "them" refers to non-Iraq Arabs, then we're not in "their" den; instead, we've brought our fight into someone else's den, the Iraqis' den, where non-Iraqi Arabs now foment violence against us in Iraq, and against the Iraqi people, who we can't seem to decide how to refer to, as our enemies, or as our allies. Before we invaded Iraq, Zarqawi wasn't there, directing violent attacks that kill Iraqis. We helped bring about the presence of al Queda as a player in Iraq.

dick said...

Sorry, but Zarqawi was there since 2002, before we went into Iraq. He was there fomenting the problems with the Iraqis and using outside agitators to stir up those Baathists where were still there.

The question still is the same one that Sean Connery's character asked in The Untouchables. What are you prepared to do to protect this country from those people who are hell bent on destroying us. If you want to sit there and preen yourself on your good behavior, go ahead. When the head choppers and the wood chippers go into action, enjoy your good character while they get ready to kill you. Your choice.

michael a litscher said...

Elizabeth: Before we invaded Iraq, Zarqawi wasn't there, directing violent attacks that kill Iraqis.

Before we entered Iraq, al-Zarqawi was there. And previously, he had directed terrorist attacks in Jordan, and operated a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.

He wasn't some innocent goat-herder, driven to monsterous acts of barbarity by the introduction of American troops in Iraq - he already was a monster.

Furthermore, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ansar al-Islam (among many others), Salman Pak (as well as terrorist training camps in Samarra and Ramadi) was/were there before we entered Iraq in March 2003, Michael Moore's kite-flying mischaracterizations notwithstanding.

altoids1306 said...

Goesh: You cannot possibly be serious.

How much can we cheapen life and still call ourselves distinct from 'them', the other side? ... There is nary a tear shed for the young wife and the child killed along side of zaqawri. He sawed off heads, we disintegrate with bombs and claim to hold the moral trump card in it all.

No, we have the moral trump card because we kill those who kill innocents. We may kill others in the process, but we deliberately try to avoid it. The kids I feel sorry for. The wife, no.

Terrorists just kill innocents, their intent is to kill harmless people, and they try to kill as many as possible.

There is no moral equivalence at all. When US soldiers start stuffing bombs in dead children so they can kill the parents as they bury their child, then you can talk about moral equivalence.

It is a nasty, dirty business we have all gotten ourselves into and I see no end in sight, nor can I see our grandchildren holding any of us in very high esteem.

I wouldn't worry about the grandchildren. If you're a baby-boomer, your children already don't hold you in very high esteem.

Bissage said...

I feel sorry for all of them. It just so happens I also feel happy some of them are dead.

Elizabeth said...

dick, your choice is a false dilemma, between invading someone, anyone, and doing nothing. That's hardly our option. Michael, no one, not a single person, has argued Zarqawi was an "innocent goat-herder,
" or that he was driven to his deeds by righteous anger at America. If you have to misrepresent me to respond to me, you fail to make much of an argument. Zarqawi, and al Queda, pose a threat to America, and have, before our invasion of Iraq. We don't get from there to proving Iraq posed a threat to us. My point is that our terms are fuzzy; "they" and "them" can be just about anyone in the Middle East. Bearding "them" in "their" den, or the flypaper theory, is a weak defense of an ill-justified war. Argue it about our invasion of Afghanistan, and you'll find me in unqualified agreeement.

PatCA said...

In a war against a stateless, or pan-statist, enemy, it's not a false dilemna at all. Bush's analysis of Saddam's role in supporting terrorism is actually a more accurate (and nuanced!) one if you look at the actual practice of 20th century terrorism. And Saddam was not "anyone," but a funder of terrorism and in violation of the treaty after the first Gulf War. But you know my talking points and I know yours. I guess we will have to wait for history's verdict on it all. I hope and pray we finish the job for the Fadhils and all the other Iraqis who hope for freedom and a decent life.

reader_iam said...

As previously pointed out, Zarqawi was already in Iraq. Just before that, by most accounts, he was in ... Iran! Which reportedly expelled him but sent him to northern Iraq to cause some trouble among the Kurds.

It's just amazing to me how much misinformation there is about Zarqawi and other terrorists/troublemakers and what was going on in Iraq BEFORE our invasion.

I recently had someone start to argue with me about whether Saddam Hussein had provided money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, including members of Hamas. No, that person insisted, Saddam NEVER provided support/encouragement for terrorists.

Sigh.