Al-Zarqawi “Terminated”

Coalition Forces Kill Top Terrorist in Iraq

Good news, of course:

Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died in an air strike north of Baghdad yesterday evening, U.S. officials have confirmed.

Passive sentences. Ugh. This calls for a rewrite:

An air strike killed Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi north of Baghdad yesterday evening.

That’s better.


Seven aides were said to have been killed along with the Big Z, so hopefully a couple of them were significant lieutenants and their deaths will furhter thin the herd of competent terrorist leaders in Iraq. MSNBC.com writes:

It was not clear to American authorities who would succeed al-Zarqawi as the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The official noted that a number of al-Zarqawi’s deputies have been taken out in recent months, which could cause chaos among the group’s top tier.

UPDATE: Video of the strike here.

Here’s part of what President Bush said last night:

Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue. Yet the ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders.

Despite this, of course, we’re going to continue to see violence and terrorism in Iraq, and we’re going to see a lot of “Three days after terrorist leaders death, violence in Iraq continues“-type headlines.

The Iraqi Minutemen have lost a leader:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

–Michael Moore, April 2004

As a final note, tips from local residents given to the Iraqi security forces. Does that make them unpatriotic Iraqis in the eyes of Mr. Moore?

UPDATE: Lots o’ links at Instapundit. I’ll add more as time allows. If you come across any good ones, toss them up in the comments.

UPDATE: Nick Berg’s father speaks out…and a discrepancy in various quotes. Either way, he seems confused.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Comments

  • buckethead says:

    What a warm, happy feeling to know that that murdering scumbag is gone.

  • Jess says:

    Sic semper tyrannis

  • FWSquatch says:

    I’ve waited a long time to read that news. The only news that could be sweeter is hearing of Bin Laden’s demise.

  • HSD says:

    Yep, they dragged Big Z out to get the Marine execution story off the front pages. When Rove is indicted, they’ll put Osama in a ‘safe house’ and get him. Not my opinion, but can you believe some have expressed that? Wild.

  • megapotamus says:

    Yes, they have had this peaceful goatherder in an isolation cell for three years or more while with the technologies of holgraphy and neuromancy they have framed him for all the warcrimes of the rat-eyed chimpanzee emperor. All the while the God-King, Lord HaliburtEnron is sluffing on the so-called ‘War’ on so-called ‘Terrorism’; leaving Ossama, the only six-foot five man in the ME free to wrap and unwrap his turban in the sun while our martyred citizens from 9-11 are STILL rotting in their graves. Not that he had anything to do with that. And not that they’re martyrs. Of course, they were criminals but we shouldn’t have the death penalty. Or something.

  • Lawrence P. Pate says:

    I hope I am posting in the right place.. I was infuriated to see ‘The Iraqi Minutemen have lost a leader.’ To use the term Minutemen in relation to Islamic terrorists is to desecrate the word and the meaning of the term. Shame!!

  • Nicholas says:

    Lawrence: Murdoc was being sarcastic. But Michael Moore did refer to them as ‘minutemen’. So feel free to be peeved at him…

  • Murdoc says:

    ‘To use the term Minutemen in relation to Islamic terrorists is to desecrate the word and the meaning of the term.’ Yes it is. That’s part of why I think Michael Moore is a jerk. To say the least. I was quoting him and using his terminology.

  • Steve Brady says:

    Zarqawi was Jordanian, not Iraqi.

  • Murdoc says:

    Steve: Yes, but a large chunk of the insurgency/terrorist network he led was Iraqi.

  • Steve Brady says:

    Right but your Moore quote, even if he meant it as you claim, doesn’t apply to Zarqawi.

  • Murdoc says:

    Steve: Many of the ‘Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation’ were led by or at least on the same side as Zarqawi. Since Zarqawi is dead, that means they’ve lost a leader. Not sure how it can be much clearer than that. And what do you mean ‘even if he meant it as you claim’? Are you suggesting that it meant something else? Please tell us.

  • KTLA says:

    I want to hear more from megapotamus.

  • Steve Brady says:

    Fair enough, but in that case, Instapundit is misquoting you.

  • Murdoc says:

    Yeah, Instapundit should have said ‘minuteman leader’, not minuteman. I guess I don’t think it really changes the message, though. So how about the alternative reading of Moore’s ‘Minuteman’ quote?

  • BruceR says:

    Flip it around. Say for argument’s sake that a given Iraqi, call him Joe, had taken up arms solely to expel American forces. Say he was incensed about Abu Ghraib, or some such. He takes care to only hit military targets, and doesn’t attack Iraqi civilians, aid workers, etc. He declines to have anything to do with Zarqawi, or Al Qaeda, neo-Baathists, or take any support from a foreign power. No question, that man is obviously an enemy of America: forget that for one sec. Is he a patriot?

  • buckethead says:

    Bruce, you can argue narrowly that that man is a patriot. Recast your scenario though. The United States loses the revolutionary war, and a tyrannical governor general is put in charge of the colonies. He murders without compunction, and generally steals everyone blind while lining his own pockets. Imagine that the French, for their own reasons, invade America to kick out the evil British G-G and with the stated intention of leaving once everything is sorted out. The French (lets assume this is Napoleonic era) are relatively kick ass. They destroyed the British land forces, and are cleaning up the pockets of loyalists. In the process, they massacre some independence-minded, god-fearing Americans. Are you an American patriot for deciding to fight the French, rather than the British?

  • Aaron says:

    Hey remember that time when the US military was going to blow up Zarqawi’s terrorist training camp in the Kurdish zone of northern Iraq and kill Zarqawi and Bush was like ‘no, becouse that will weaken my Saddam-Terrorist connection that I’ve been lying bout?’ Hey remember that second time when the US military was going to blow up Zarqawi’s terrorist training camp in the Kurdish zone of northern Iraq and kill Zarqawi and Bush was like ‘no, becouse that will weaken my Saddam-Terrorist connection that I’ve been lying bout?’ Hey remember that third time when the US military was going to blow up Zarqawi’s terrorist training camp in the Kurdish zone of northern Iraq and kill Zarqawi and Bush was like ‘no, becouse that will weaken my Saddam-Terrorist connection that I’ve been lying bout?’ And then we invaded and Zarqawi escaped and led the slaughter of Iraqis. Boy I bet those Iraqis sure are glad that freedom is on the march!

  • KTLA says:

    Can you refresh our memory when he was ‘like’ that? Would help move the discussion along, right now I’d place your contribution just behind megapotamus. Difference is, his (hers?) was at least a good read.

  • Murdoc says:

    BruceR: Sure, as you describe him, he’s a patriot. I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at/responding to. If it’s the Moore quote, and you’re saying Moore was only talking about Iraqis like your ‘Joe’, I have a lot of trouble believing it to be true. Regardless, the ‘patriot’ is an enemy and I will support and cheer for those who try to destroy him as long as he insists on attacking.

  • d says:

    Not to be a dick, but ‘Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died in an air strike north of Baghdad yesterday evening, U.S. officials have confirmed’ is not a passive voice sentence. ‘Zarqawi was killed’ would be passive voice. Unless we want the terrorists to win, we must maintain a strict understanding of English grammar.

  • Murdoc says:

    d: Yes, yes. I was already emailed about that earlier and here was my response: You are right about the grammar, and I wondered how exactly to word that. I chose ‘passive sentences’ rather than ‘passive voice’ because it was the passive nature of ‘died’, not necessarily the particular gammar, that bothered me. I’ve complainted before about the use of ‘died’ when I’ve felt that a more ‘active’ phrasing more accurately gets the message across of what happened. People died when a ship sank, but if it was sunk intentionally I feel that ‘killed’ should be used if it’s the action of the sinker, rather than the sinkee, that is being discussed. I think the DoD release should have led off with a more active phrasing, is all. It’s a nit, but it’s one that I like to pick…

  • BruceR says:

    Oh, I’m just playing ‘thought experiment’. Moore’s comment was facile, of course. That said, I do think that once you concede at least the possibility of an ‘honorable’ component to the Iraqi resistance, in the same way that there were honorable German soldiers in WW2, honorable men in Lee’s army in 1865, or honorable Loyalists in the American Revolution (buckethead’s example, above), then that does alter the moral obligations of your soldiers somewhat.

  • Murdoc says:

    BruceR: There is absolutely an ‘honorable’ and ‘patriotic’ element to the resistance. Still the enemy, of course, but not a dishonorable enemy. For that matter, I consider the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WW2 to be extremely honorable and patriotic. Since they were trying to destroy our ships and kill our men, it was right to give no quarter, of course. But that doesn’t make them or their actions ‘dishonorable. The same pilots flying the same planes into purely civilian targets, though would be entirely and completely dishonorable. And a bit of a gray area crops up (at least in my mind) when you’re talking about carpet-bombing Nazi aircaft factories in the middle of German cities. Don’t get me wrong, I think it was right to do it in the 1940s. But given the advances in technology and the capabilities that ‘smart’ weapons bring, doing the same thing today would be unacceptable. (BTW, I’ve read your stuff for years (off and on, anyway) and am honored to have you comment here.)

Comments Closed