November 12, 2005

SINCE WHEN WAS NIHILISM LOGICAL?:

Jordanian City Saddled With Unwanted Fame: Some residents of Zarqa aren't convinced that one of their own is the mastermind behind the three deadly hotel bombings in Amman. (Ken Ellingwood, November 12, 2005, LA Times)

In Zarqa, as most everywhere in the country, residents voiced shock and outrage at the attacks, the deadliest of which struck a Jordanian wedding banquet in the Radisson.

The residents said about half a dozen of those killed in the nearly simultaneous bombings were from Zarqa, a city of about 1.2 million half an hour's drive east of Amman.

In the commercial district down the road from Zarqawi's family home, several residents also expressed skepticism about the claims of responsibility.

One vendor said he doubted Zarqawi was even alive.

But residents in Zarqa uniformly condemned the attacks—and Zarqawi, too, if he was responsible for ordering them.

"Whoever is behind it, he is wrong. It is a crime," said Issam Qudommi, a 53-year-old finance manager whose cousin was killed in the Hyatt blast. "It's illogical what he is doing — bad for Islam and all Arabs."

Arwa Yousef, 33, a homemaker wearing a head covering favored by observant Muslim women, said she was especially worried that attacks in the name of Islam were harming the image of Muslims worldwide.

She said it had become easy to lure young, uneducated men into a fanatical brand of religion that used Islamic teachings to breed hatred.

"I don't know why people are harming our prophet and Islam this way," she said.

Yousef was on her way to her niece's wedding but said her heart wasn't really in it. She had skipped the hairdresser and was going in slacks. Yousef said the bombing tragedy had sapped her family's enthusiasm for celebration. There would be no wedding banquet.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 12, 2005 11:00 AM
Comments

And, of course, they were equally outraged when Palestinian terrorists bombed Israeli discos and pizza parlors, slaughtering innocent youngsters and families. Maybe now they will be sympathetic to these victims, now that they too have been targeted for death. (But I won't be holding my breath!)

Posted by: obc at November 12, 2005 11:43 AM

obc:

We didn't even care that al Qaeda was killing Americans until they did it on our shore, twice.

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 11:50 AM

oj. Correction. Our government didn't care, we, the people, cared -- a lot.

Posted by: erp at November 12, 2005 4:16 PM

erp:

How often did you think about Osama pre-911?

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 4:24 PM

As for me, often.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 12, 2005 8:49 PM

When some network (probably ABC) reported that he was running camps in Afghanistan, training an 'army' to go and kill Americans, I thought about it, too.

But I knew President Intern wasn't going to do anything. And now we know the rest of the story (about passing him by in 1995/6 when he was offered up by Sudan).

I don't dipute your point about apathy; but the government had people on Osama's tail (like John O'Neill), and then actively stopped them. Even 25 years ago, decisions like that could be made pretty much without fear of discovery - not anymore. Now it's best to let the 'rough men' Orwell wrote of go and do their thing, right in the enemy's tent.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 13, 2005 12:38 AM

Osama, by name?

Don't know if I ever directed my angst toward Osama or even particularly distinguished him from other terrorist names bandied about like Abu Nidal, but I cared a lot when our sailors on the Cole were killed and Clinton apologized to Yemen for the Cole getting in the way of their missiles.

I can't dredge every Clinton travesty again, but I cared then and care now. Thats why Im terrified that the campaign to destroy Bush may work and well see Clinton II in the White House to repeat all the same mistakes and put us in jeopardy again.

Posted by: erp at November 13, 2005 7:03 AM

& didn't think his cruise missile launch was just wag the dog?

Posted by: oj at November 13, 2005 8:21 AM

erp:

Yes, Osama by name. I think it must have been ABC, because of the reporter who interviewed him in 1998 (John somebody, glasses, frizzy gray hair, can't remember his last name). And I remember writing an e-mail to a friend of mine and mentioning the training camps for the war on America. I think this was prior to the embassy bombings, because after that we were at least attempting to shoot missiles at him (when it was expedient).

And John O'Neill wasn't taken off the 'case' until the State Dept. shut him down after the USS Cole attack in Yemen. It always amazed me that Clinton didn't immediately go flex some muscle somewhere, because it would have helped Gore if we had really hit back hard.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 13, 2005 1:59 PM

Although I spared not one second's worth of thought for UbL prior to 9/11, not even after the first WTC bombing, I was very strongly revolted by the Taliban ever since they first seized power.

Not that I was ever in a position to do anything constructive about it, except bad-mouth them to no-doubt bored acquaintances and friends, but it did make it awfully sweet when our SpecOp forces collapsed 'em like a house of cards.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 14, 2005 7:58 AM
« PUTTING THE CORPI IN CORPORATIONS: | Main | EVEN THEY AREN'T THAT STUPID, ARE THEY?: »