1) Three women were killed in the attacks we are told. Who were they? Does this reduce the moral acceptability of the act of dropping two 500 lb bombs on the house in Hibhib, north of Baghdad? Did Americans know that women were in the building prior to the attack? Were there reasonable actions that could have been taken to induce surrender prior to the attack? We know that in hostage situations, police and S.W.A.T. teams are quite skilled at inducing surrender. Also would Mr al-Zarqawi alive prove to have been more valuable if that were a reasonable option? Certainly, he would not have died a martyr; he would have been a potential asset in garnering information about his command, control and intelligence. It would have demonstrated some preference for a non-violent resolution of the conflict in Iraq.
2) Apparently American commandos had been brought in by helicopter and encircled the area prior to the bombings. Did they make any effort to achieve a peaceful surrender so that possibly innocents inside would have been spared?
3) It was reported that Zarqawi was not killed by the bombings instantly but was placed on a stretcher by Iraqi forces prior to being handed over to American forces. He died on the stretcher. Was he murdered at that point or did he die from his wounds? Were efforts made to save his life–required I believe under the Geneva Convention. If he were killed by American forces on the ground, that would be a war crime, if he were injured and did not pose a threat to American forces. He would have merited P.O.W. status whether he was wearing a military uniform or not. Since we can't trust the Pentagon and anything they report due to their coverups of massacres and general disregard for human life, I make the following statement. If Mr Zarqawi, a ruthless and violent insurgent who caused the death of many innocents, was harmed on that stretcher or in any manner died because of actions on the ground by U.S. ground forces, AFTER HIS APPREHENSION, those persons should be arrested, courtmartialed and dealt with severely. A non-resistant prisoner must be afforded Geneva Convention protection which requires medical attention and no bodily injury.
4) What was the purpose of the second bomb? Was there gunfire still emanating form the safehouse? Were there tangible evidence of the first bomb having missed the target? We saw a video that purportedly showed it hit the target. What were the rules of engagement that would allow a second attack? I question even the first bombing if there were alternatives. After all, this house or structure was quite isolated in a forest; it had no apparent "friendly" adjacent structures where the residents could have fled. I doubt if the bombing was necessary.
5) When they showed the cadavers of President Hussein's sons, I thought it was almost pornographic where these virtually unrecognisable corpses were made to look barely human. The purpose was to prove they were killed. Apparently high value targets receive this strutting photography of their corpses disseminated throughout the world. I think it cheapens the humanity of the United States to showcase dead humans in such a manner. They certainly resist it when it comes to American K.I.A.
It is a form of posturing and bragging that serves no useful purpose except to further the hardening and increased lack of morality that encompasses our military and our civilian leadership. I did not need to see a post-mortem photo of Mr al-Zarqawi's head. That did not impress me. It disgusted me. Tactically the military may have won a victory with this incident but strategically and perhaps as a result of the manner in which it was communicated, it might even fuel greater resistance among Iraqis.