Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
DJ Happy, are you suggesting that Zarqawi did not want to harm westerners before the Iraq war? 'Cause that's bullocks - he was a major Al-Qaida figure before, so it's not like the war suddenly changed his mind. The US did not create Zarqawi and his band of merry men; the Iraq war gave Zarqawi a stage to play on. I'd say he would've gone on killing Westerners in other countries had the US not attacked. And that he's not in charge of a country is pretty damn relevant - it means he's unable to kill as many people as he might have otherwise.
|
No, I was saying that Saddam wasn't targeting Westerners.
I find it disturbing that you say the fact that he can't kill as many as he wants to is a positive. I thought the aim was to eliminate killing altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
The young men would have been angry anyway, or are you forgetting the US-backed sanctions that killed thousands of innocent Muslim babies, and the US-backed no-fly-zones that killed many brave Muslim soldiers? Extremists don't need a reason to hate, just an excuse, *any* excuse.
|
This statement is baseless. The fact is that while they may have been angry, they weren't acting on it. Even if what you say is true, Iraq has given them the perfect opportunity to act. Your argument is that terrorists will always exist, no matter what you do. In which case, what are you doing?
Extremists always need a reason to hate. Your analysis of them as nutters who just want to kill is one of the major problems with the US attitude to this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
Yes, when Zarqawi is able to kill millions of innocent civilians instead of dozens, we'll talk again. But I think you're giving the man too much credit - I think he'll be dead pretty damn soon, killed by the Iraqis he's "liberating".
|
You mean the ones who are currently hiding him?
I like your use of the word "liberating" in inverted commas. It seems appropriate on so many levels.