Zarqawi

Yay.. he's dead.. That fucker deserved having a bomb dropped on his head.. Will it change anything?

While browsing through various blogs, found this quote that sums it up quite nicely.

"He calls Zarqawi’s demise both a 'collassal (sic) morale boost' for all of us but says it also has 'big operational significance.' 'When you get rid of a leader, it’s very hard to replace him.' The Israelis have proved this time and time again."

The amusing thing about that quote, is that it comes from somebody who actually has some prominence and credibility in the political pundit world. He obviously contradicts his basic premise, which is one of the stupidest things a person could do in making an argument.

If the Israelis are having to kill leaders "time and time again", doesn't that mean that new leaders emerge time and time again?

Right wing conservative dumb fucks can't seem to grasp the concept that in the world of "terrorism", individuals mean nothing. In any organization, the ideas are bigger then a single person, and there's always somebody else hungry to take control. Hell, I'd like to see Bin Laden bombed into a vapor, but that won't mean a whole lot.

I do hope it means something for Iraq - but it won't. It's a clusterfuck.

** udate **

Prof Cole makes sense

There is no evidence of operational links between [Zarqawi's] Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don't expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon.