Patterico's Pontifications

9/23/2006

Major Iraqi Terrorist Captured

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 11:54 am

The head of Ansar al Sunnah (the second worst terror organization in Iraq) has been captured. Rusty has the details.

26 Responses to “Major Iraqi Terrorist Captured”

  1. Great news. Debate over what interrogation techniques are appropriate, now we have agreement between the administration and McCain’s gang, may help to reveal what’s allowed and what isn’t.

    But, if it’s still too soon to have clear directions, we could always send him to Abby Grabby for a few months and let the Iraqis ask him all about his pals and their plans. He probably has quite a few interesting things to say.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  2. Great news. Debate over what interrogation techniques are appropriate, now we have agreement between the administration and McCain’s gang, may help to reveal what’s allowed and what isn’t.

    Or does the sovereign democratic let freedom reign government of Iraq handle him?

    actus (10527e)

  3. Abu Ghraib is under Iraqi control now, actus. Black Jack said the same thing you did. Or were you implying something else?

    nk (2e1372)

  4. Abu Ghraib is under Iraqi control now, actus.

    I know. Let freedom reign.

    actus (10527e)

  5. Is someone unhappy that a major terrorist has been captured, or unhappy the people who’ve been indiscriminately butchered by this guy might get their hands on him?

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  6. No. Actus has a point. It is on a mistaken premise, that we who support the Iraq War have any illusions about the people we are liberating, nonetheless he is right. It will be a very long while before Iraq fully adopts western civilized values. My response: At least we are giving them the chance to do so.

    nk (57e995)

  7. Before we look down our collective noses at the apparently inexplicable behavior of Iraqis, it might be well to recall that Iraq developed a highly civilized society for many hundreds of years while our European ancestors were painting themselves blue and worshiping oak trees.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  8. It will be a very long while before Iraq fully adopts western civilized values.

    Western/civilized. That was nice. But the point isn’t so much as to how long it takes to build a nation to be just as civilized as us. Its about how some people thinkg we let freedom reign awhile ago.

    Before we look down our collective noses at the apparently inexplicable behavior of Iraqis, it might be well to recall that Iraq developed a highly civilized society for many hundreds of years while our European ancestors were painting themselves blue and worshiping oak trees.

    And then our European ancestors blew each other up in two world wars about 30 years apart.

    actus (10527e)

  9. Black Jack wrote:

    Before we look down our collective noses at the apparently inexplicable behavior of Iraqis, it might be well to recall that Iraq developed a highly civilized society for many hundreds of years while our European ancestors were painting themselves blue and worshiping oak trees.

    True — which leads to the obvious question, why was it that the people who had a head start, the people in the “cradle of civilization,” stopped growing in terms of civilization, stopped being civilized?

    Dana (1d5902)

  10. actus wrote:

    And then our European ancestors blew each other up in two world wars about 30 years apart.

    Well yes, they did — because they had advanced far enough to have the capability to do so. Our brethren in the Middle East were still at the technological level of fighting with swords and the occasional stolen carbine.

    And after the world wars, the Europeans tried to reinstall civilization, which gave us the League of Nations (unfortunately structured) and the post WW2 institutions (which would include the Geneva Conventions) to try and prevent such things from happening again.

    Slobodan Milosevoc and Radavan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic demonstrated how, after almost half a century of calm and civilization reigning, barbarians can still overturn the peace of civilization, and civilized nations are loathe to respond to the barbarians. At least in Europe, they tried.

    Dana (1d5902)

  11. Or does the sovereign democratic let freedom reign government of Iraq handle him?

    That gets my vote!

    I know. Let freedom reign.

    Not for prisoners, silly.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  12. “And then our European ancestors blew each other up in two world wars about 30 years apart.”

    Sounds like Actus didn’t think getting rid of Hitler and Tojo was worth it.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  13. Sounds like Actus didn’t think getting rid of Hitler and Tojo was worth it.

    Oh. It certainly was. It’s also part of Western history that we had to. Never mind the first one.

    True — which leads to the obvious question, why was it that the people who had a head start, the people in the “cradle of civilization,” stopped growing in terms of civilization, stopped being civilized?

    Great powers rise and fall. We will too someday.

    actus (10527e)

  14. Not for prisoners, silly.

    Perhaps this is too subtle for you, but freedom reigns for prisoners when they are treated properly. Let death squads reign isn’t as catchy.

    actus (10527e)

  15. Perhaps this is too subtle for you, but freedom reigns for prisoners when they are treated properly.

    No, actus. It’s too wrong for me. Proper treatment is not the same as freedom. You can be treated properly in solitary confinement. Freedom does not reign then. Captivity does. Which is like, the opposite of freedom, you know?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  16. Proper treatment is not the same as freedom.

    For prisoners, it is. We take away some of their freedom, due to their criminality. But not all. We still have process and other rules.

    actus (10527e)

  17. Actus responded to my question — poorly:

    True — which leads to the obvious question, why was it that the people who had a head start, the people in the “cradle of civilization,” stopped growing in terms of civilization, stopped being civilized?

    Great powers rise and fall. We will too someday.

    I didn’t ask you about the rise and fall of nations, actus; I inquired about he fall of civilization and progress in the Arab lands. Why is it that the lands which were the leaders in progress and civilization are sunk in the throes of barbarism today?

    The answer has nothing to do with nations or empires; Egypt is about the only nation which has realistically survived from then until now, and it is part of the area.

    Dana (1d5902)

  18. Dana, civilizations develop as technology advances, usually technological improvements in food production and weapons are the prime movers.

    However, as technological developments produce freedom from subsistance aciivities, ideology evolves and it displaces and eventually comes to dominate technology. Consequently, civilization advances in a series of starts and stops. Technological developments spur advance and ideology applies the breaks.

    Once an ideology takes firm hold, be it Socialism, Marxism, Islam, or Political Correctness, it rapidly slows technological development and eventually brings it to a halt. Ideological leaders institute a rigid hierarchy, with their particular priesthood at the top.

    That’s why the Arabs, Communists, and Democrats all fall behind. They think it’s ideology should drive the cultural bus with them in the driver’s seat, and that technology should serve their aims. However, it doesn’t work that way and every time they try it, things just seem to fall apart.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  19. That’s why the Arabs, Communists, and Democrats all fall behind. They think it’s ideology should drive the cultural bus with them in the driver’s seat, and that technology should serve their aims. – Black Jack

    Deep thoughts.

    Was Ralph Kramden a loudy Dem, then?

    steve (1f7e30)

  20. Could have been, Steve: a fictional character can be whatever you want him to be. :)

    Dana (3e4784)

  21. Darn it, BJ: you’ve done the work on which I wanted to trip up actus!

    My point would be that Islam is the change in the Arab world which has helped to take our Middle Eastern friends from innovation and civilization to poverty (in some places obscured by petroleum wealth, but lacking in much else in the way of production) and barbarism.

    Dana (3e4784)

  22. Dana, actus is much too disingenuous and slippery to take your bait. I waited long enough to see he wasn’t going to fall into your net. But, your point was important and so rather than let it go, I jumped in. Sorry if I was out of place.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  23. More good news, another one bites the dust!

    The UK Telegraph reports: British troops have killed a senior al-Qa’eda figure during a major raid in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has said.

    About 250 soldiers stormed the house where Omar Farouq was staying in Basra last night. Farouq – who has been linked to a series of kidnappings and murders and was believed to be a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden – was shot when he resisted arrest, according to the MoD.

    MoD spokesman said: “A deliberate operation was carried out against a known terrorist. “When he opened fire on the troops he was killed in a return of fire.”

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  24. My comment is non-expert, but citizen sanity in support of your anti-war positions generally, and emphasis on the illegality of Bush’s War declaration as properly viewed as NOT representing America, and NOT the duty of the authority bestowed to the President who is to adhere to Congress as the true body representing the people in times of war.

    Unprovoked war is certainly not wanted by a majority of Americans.

    I have written in 1985 for the FREEZE as a volunteer, and had the opportunity to interview what was then named “Beyond War Movement” out of California, locally represented by a Hartford Physician who was a member of the Beyond War movement, and noted the theme “War is Obsolete” due to the technology as being entirely out of proportion and not a proper conflict resolution. At that time, in 1985, “new modes of thinking” was what they claimed was needed.

    My layman’s non-expert view, with a pre-eminent attorney, Ralph Nader as a Proper Presidential candidate offering anti-war DIPLOMACY and withdrawal of the troops and humanitarian aid as the immediate need in Iraq–is that sanity (The Freeze in 1985, soon thereafter changed their name to SANE/FREEZE and is now PEACEACTION, and likewise, the Beyond War Movement has changed to Global Community-at my last check, which is not current…the themes are solid…stop the production of nuclear weapons applied to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and still DOES! and the theme of the Beyond War movement that WAR IS OBSOLETE, is actually not only long overdue in 1985, but a proper view of human civilization. Civilized people should not expect to declare war, but instead seek diplomacy as the proper view of international policy as a FACT and CONSTANT.

    The U.S. is not supposed to be a “warmonger.” We are supposed to be a self-sufficient, self-governing country properly attending to our own affairs.

    Iran should be dealt with at the international level, and that is a proper place for attorneys to tender legal diplomacy. The U.N. is a great forum for proper intelligent, civilized, and self-respecting conversations about each country’s proper position in this field of “nuclear weapons” which are supposed to be STOPPED.

    Jim in Cala Dor Palma de Mallorca (b79bb8)

  25. :) Dear Jim, if you worked in the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, perhaps you will also recall that President Reagan and the then-better-backboned European governments did not succumb to your notions, and that, thanks to the deployment of the Pershing II LR-IRBMs, the Soviets came to an agreement and withdrew their SS-20s from service.

    In effect, the goal you sought was achieved precisely by ignoring the methods y’all proposed.

    My comment is non-expert, but citizen sanity in support of your anti-war positions generally, and emphasis on the illegality of Bush’s War declaration as properly viewed as NOT representing America, and NOT the duty of the authority bestowed to the President who is to adhere to Congress as the true body representing the people in times of war.

    Please note that President Bush did go to Congress for the authority to use military force in Iraq, and was granted it. Two years later, the electorate chose to reelect President Bush, and increased the size of the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.

    Dana (1d5902)

  26. and NOT the duty of the authority bestowed to the President who is to adhere to Congress as the true body representing the people in times of war.

    Uh, US Constitution, Article 1 states that Congress’ role is to declare war and pay for it. US Constitution, Article 2 states that the President is Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

    That is, the President’s duty is to prosecute the war, not listen to whining, pouting pundits of pessimism in Congres about how he should cut and run from it.

    Dubya (c16726)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2231 secs.