"Gotcha"

Nuttzz

To borrow an old sun headline...

The yanks claim to have got Al-Zarqawi in an airstrike, is this a chance for peace in Iraq or merely cutting the head off a hydra. Some how I reckon it will be the latter.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/06/08/story262369.html

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida-linked militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed in a US air raid north of Baghdad, Iraq’s prime minister said today.

Prime Nouri Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed yesterday evening, along with seven aides.

Maliki said: “Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated,” drawing applause at a news conference.

US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said al-Zarqawi’s death marked a great success for Iraq and the global war on terror.

The death was "a good omen for Iraq and for its new government".

A US military spokeman said al-Zarqawi’s body had been identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.

The Jordanian-born militant, who is believed to have personally beheaded at least two American hostages, became Iraq’s most wanted militant, as notorious as Osama bin Laden, to whom he swore allegiance in 2004. The United States put a $25m (€19.6m) bounty on al-Zarqawi, the same as bin Laden.

In the past year, he moved his campaign beyond Iraq’s borders, claiming to have carried out a November 9, 2005 triple suicide bombing against hotels in Amman that killed 60 people, as well as other attacks in Jordan and even a rocket attack from Lebanon into northern Israel.

US forces and their allies came close to capturing al-Zarqawi several times since his campaign began in mid-2003.
Click here

His closest brush may have come in late 2004. Deputy Interior Ministry Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal said Iraqi security forces caught al-Zarqawi near the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, but then released him because they didn’t realize who he was.

In May 2005, web statements by his group said al-Zarqawi had been wounded in fighting with Americans and was being treated in a hospital abroad – raising speculation over a successor among his lieutenants. But days later, a statement said al-Zarqawi was fine and had returned to Iraq.

There was never any independent confirmation of the reports of his wounding.

US forces believe they just missed capturing al-Zarqawi in a February 20, 2005 raid in which troops closed in on his vehicle west of Baghdad near the Euphrates River. His driver and another associate were captured and al-Zarqawi’s computer was seized along with pistols and ammunition.

US troops twice launched massive invasions of Fallujah, the stronghold used by al-Qaida in Iraq fighters and other insurgents west of Baghdad. An April 2004 offensive left the city still in insurgent hands, but the October 2004 assault wrested it from them. However, al-Zarqawi – if he was in the city – escaped.

growler

Glad to hear that they finally got him, unfortunately I think that the insurgency hs taken on a life of its own and probably doesn' need much leadership / instruction in carrying out its butchery.

sovtek

Isn't this the third time he's either been killed or wounded?
I noticed that USA Today is going to run a big ad for impeachment today.
I smell a big ol' PR stunt here.
Robert Fisk speculates that he's been dead for months.

Heinrich

Maybe he is sharing a grave with Bin Laden. Sounds like a PR stunt.

bonkey

They've been banging on for long enough how he's the root of so many problems that I'm really interested in what happens next.

My guess is that nothing significant will change, a new "ueber-evil" will be pushed to the front, and the mainstream media won't bat an eye except maybe for a half-hearted few questions of the "I thought you said..." when some new bogey-man is blamed for Iraqs woes.

from the article wrote:

as notorious as Osama bin Laden

Says it all.

Gurgle

Off on a tangent but:

A note posted on one website – known as a clearinghouse for al-Qaida in Iraq statements – shortly after the news of al-Zarqawi’s death broke on TV lamented: “We hope this news is not true.”

“If Sheikh al-Zarqawi has died, he will go to heaven, God willing, and there will be 200 million al-Zarqawis after him,” said another note posted on the same site.

The number caught my attention, because:

In Revelation 9:16, the Bible says that an army of 200 million will one day be assembled.

Does this figure appear in the Quoran or is this a christian scholar lamenting Al-Zarqawi?

Manic Moran

Curiously, 'Gotcha' was the first thing I thought of when I saw the size of the headline font on the BBC website.

I agree that the insurgency has taken on a bit of a life of its own at this point, but it does seem to be enheartening to the arab (and Iraqi) people as a whole judging by the 'on the streets reaction' as reported by Arab media.

Jordanians are proudly saying that their intel helped to this. I think Zarqawi pissed off some people too many with the Jordanian hotel bombings.

NTM

Zombrex

I remember when they captured Sadam, and said "We got him!" and all the press (well the American ones at least) started clapping and everyone started cheering. Iraq has gone to complete pop since then, so I would have thought that would have been a leason for the US Army not to put too much weight in the fact that they can capture one man

Flukey

Are there any American generals in Iraq with any toes left, or brains? Once again they have shot themselves in the foot, by giving Al Q'Aida one of their biggest boosts in a long time. When will they ever learn?

Once again they are hailing a turning point, as they did on the killing of Saddam's sons and as they did when Saddam was captured. Those were indeed turning points. Things got far worse. Once again they are proclaiming this as a great day in Iraq. It is indeed, especially if you are a terrorist. Far from knocking their morale, it will strengthen their resolve, create new leaders, and be a massive boost for their recruitment drive. Yet we are getting this rubbish all day about how good this a day this is.

We hear a lot about the war on terror, though we are still waiting for it to begin. Meanwhile the war for terror goes from strength to strength, as George, Donald and their generals give yet another excuse to the terrorists to further up their activities. Stand by, as along with the increase in terrorism we can now expect, we can surely soon expect more of these brainless fools to shoot themselves in the foot, providing of course, as I said in the beginning, that they have any toes left.

Unfortunately, Bali Mark III or another London or Madrid railway station event may prove just how bad a day this is.

horseflesh

Flukey wrote:

Are there any American generals in Iraq with any toes left, or brains? Once again they have shot themselves in the foot, by giving Al Q'Aida one of their biggest boosts in a long time. When will they ever learn?

Once again they are hailing a turning point, as they did on the killing of Saddam's sons and as they did when Saddam was captured. Those were indeed turning points. Things got far worse. Once again they are proclaiming this as a great day in Iraq. It is indeed, especially if you are a terrorist. Far from knocking their morale, it will strengthen their resolve, create new leaders, and be a massive boost for their recruitment drive. Yet we are getting this rubbish all day about how good this a day this is.

We hear a lot about the war on terror, though we are still waiting for it to begin. Meanwhile the war for terror goes from strength to strength, as George, Donald and their generals give yet another excuse to the terrorists to further up their activities. Stand by, as along with the increase in terrorism we can now expect, we can surely soon expect more of these brainless fools to shoot themselves in the foot, providing of course, as I said in the beginning, that they have any toes left.

Unfortunately, Bali Mark III or another London or Madrid railway station event may prove just how bad a day this is.

And what did you expect them to do? Just let him carry on his good terrorist work??
What would YOU have suggested?
Damned if they do it appears, and damed if they don't.

sovtek

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06082006.html

Been waiting all day for this...inevitably dressing down of the "Coalition" boogey man by Counterpunch.

lostexpectation

as about as believable as anything else

Zarqawi Scheduled for Martyrdom

June 7, 2006: The relationship between terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi and and the mainline al Qaeda leadership continues to deteriorate. Zarqawi's recent audio messages have not only attacked the U.S. and the Shia-dominated government in Iraq, but also Iran. He's even claiming that the U.S., Iran, and Shia in general, are in cahoots to destroy Islam. He has also called for continued attacks against Shia.

Except for his verbal attacks on the U.S. and the Iraqi government, he is almost totally distanced himself from the central leadership. Other al Qaeda leaders have been trying to down play anti-Iranian and anti-Shia rhetoric, and have been strongly discouraging attacks on civilians.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060607.aspx


Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda's efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future. If handled right it can be made to look like he went out in a blaze of glory fighting American troops or that he was foully murdered. Either way, al Qaeda gets rid of a problem and gains another "martyr."

...Zarqawi 'sacked for mistakes'
Sunday 02 April 2006

Zarqawi is said to have made many political mistakes

Iraq's resistance has replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as political head of the rebels, the son of Osama bin Laden's mentor has said in Jordan.

Hudayf Azzam, 35, who claims close contacts with the fighters, said on Sunday: "The Iraqi resistance's high command asked Zarqawi to give up his political role and replaced him with an Iraqi, because of several mistakes he made.

"Zarqawi's role has been limited to military action. Zarqawi bowed to the orders two weeks ago and was replaced by Iraqi national Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2B8B878B-D862-4056-B677-E600549C2738.htm

Most wanted terrorist 'kicked out as leader' for bloody tactics
The Times of London, April 04, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2117134,00.html

Has Al Qaeda demoted Zarqawi?
csmonitor.com, April 5, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0405/dailyUpdate.html

I think the gothca is on you nuttz

Hagar

"Gotcha"? = 70 virgins for all eternity for the man concerned. What a loser.

Sand

Its good news, a morale booster for the Iraqi people and the government. I dont see why people are going mourning him. Is it suddenly bad news for this guy to be out of action?

Sure, the insurgency wont fall apart overnight but 5 people were killed with al-Zarqawi, including his spiritual advisor by reports, so it seems likely the others werent nobodies. His network has been compromised by arrests and someone squeled on where he was at that time (I see the US are already busy crediting sources within al-Zarqawis organisation with the tipoff - little too crude an attempt to sow discord but at least theyre trying). Just how much pressure like that can any organisation take before it starts missing skills and leadership? This isnt a decisive victory, but it is a victory.

There is the possibility that the removal of al-Zarqawi will allow the rise of more practical leadership amongst the secular insurgency to negotiate with the Iraqi government. al-Zarqawi was desperately trying to provoke sectarian warfare (and has succeeded to an extent, if not to his full ambitions), so he would have done his level best to sabotage any possible deal between the Sunni insurgents and the Iraqi government.

And what did you expect them to do? Just let him carry on his good terrorist work??
What would YOU have suggested?
Damned if they do it appears, and damed if they don't.

Theres a new revolutionary strategy - win by losing!

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

They've been banging on for long enough how he's the root of so many problems that I'm really interested in what happens next.

My guess is that nothing significant will change, a new "ueber-evil" will be pushed to the front, and the mainstream media won't bat an eye except maybe for a half-hearted few questions of the "I thought you said..." when some new bogey-man is blamed for Iraqs woes.

You seem to have a valid insight.
I mean in spite of the resson give to invade that "saddam has AL Khyda training camps" there were NO islamic fundamentalists in Iraq under Saddam. Now the fundie business is thriving in Iraq.

I am reminded of the British artriving in Tahiti. the "filthy savages" had women who had sex with whomsoever they pleased. The place needed to be "civilized" so they intrioduced mureder rape , sexually transmitted disease and colonialism obviously making the place "better".

By the way. I didnt support Saddam either when the US were supplying him and shaking his hand.

It is a bit like the scenes for "Team America: World Police" where they destroy the Eifil Tower and the pyramids in order to "get their man". Iraq is a wreck but "we got the bad guy" is the line trotted out. I am happy when fundies are gone. I am happy when dictators are deposed (including the ones supported by the US). I am not happy when a money wasting military regime replaces a dictator. I will be happy when the government of Iraq has control handed over to the country. i wonder then if they tell the US to leave will they do so?

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Its good news, a morale booster for the Iraqi people and the government. I dont see why people are going mourning him. Is it suddenly bad news for this guy to be out of action?

Nope. gl;ad to se him gone.

Sure, the insurgency wont fall apart overnight but 5 people were killed with al-Zarqawi, including his spiritual advisor by reports, so it seems likely the others werent nobodies. His network has been compromised by arrests and someone squeled on where he was at that time (I see the US are already busy crediting sources within al-Zarqawis organisation with the tipoff - little too crude an attempt to sow discord but at least theyre trying). Just how much pressure like that can any organisation take before it starts missing skills and leadership? This isnt a decisive victory, but it is a victory.

there was no fundamentalists when Saddam was around. And the sewers and water worked. Tell it to the people of Iraq. Can you offer them bread and freedom?

There is the possibility that the removal of al-Zarqawi will allow the rise of more practical leadership amongst the secular insurgency to negotiate with the Iraqi government.

Oh so you thing the US will talk to terrorists when they are in a "war on terror" ? Ones that didnt exist before the Us invaded? Scratch that . I mean who is the mhadi Army anyway?
They ignore him in Bhagdad

solas

anyone seen this?
leverage xenophobia

Two slides from a briefing prepared for Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describe a U.S. military propaganda campaign that was intended to highlight the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, in the Iraqi insurgency. By emphasizing his foreign origin, the "psychological operations" effort sought to play on a perceived Iraqi dislike of foreigners and so split the insurgency.

Hobbes

yea saw that.. Jordan are seriously p!ssed off that he was called that he came from there.

imho killing him changes nothing. Look at it this way...

(not a real senario) If Bush was to be killed by terrorists and they declared a victory do you think the Bush Administration would suddenly give up or loose Morale and let the democrats take over for a while? Like heck, more likely you get President Cheney and the gloves would be off in regards to retribution.

Why do we always think the enemy will do the opposite?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

How did they identify him from fingerprints and dental records when they did not even know for sure how many legs he had?

Hagar

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

How did they identify him from fingerprints and dental records when they did not even know for sure how many legs he had?

Don't be silly, the US wouldn't lie to the World would they?
Anyway legs don't have teeth or fingers.;)

civdef

How did they identify him from fingerprints and dental records when they did not even know for sure how many legs he had?

He was well known to the Jordanians, and spent many years in jail there.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

civdef wrote:

He was well known to the Jordanians, and spent many years in jail there.

so the Jordanians know how many legs he has but they didn't tell the yanks...

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

so the Jordanians know how many legs he has but they didn't tell the yanks...

I'll do a deal with you...
If your next few posts on politics are as spammy as the last few,you will be banned.
This is a discussion forum not a post count forum.

Wolff

Every single report I have read has stated he was jordanian - how can they be annoyed this is emphasised when the man was Jordanian !

Maybe the iraqis dont like foreigners because they keep coming to their country and blowing themselves and innocent iraqis up - Saudis, Yemenis jordanians syrians etc - they seem to be killing a lot more than the Americans.

I think its fair to say most of the casualties of the insugents are Iraqis not americans a fact that seems to be overlooked a lot.

Also maybe the contractors for gas sewers and electricity could get the country going again if the insurgents would let them.

I think the americans would gladly rebulid and scaper if they were let - but this has turned into a nice holy war between Sunni and Shia another fact thats seems to be ignored.

This man was an animal held to be personally responsible for at least two beheadings by the way - an appalling way to treat a fellow human being and one which made me sick to the stomach.

He died like the dog he was - I think even Osama will be glad he was put down.

Hagar

Wolff wrote:

This man was an animal held to be personally responsible for at least two beheadings by the way

I'm not convinced. If the US didn't claim that he had personally done the beheadings it would be an admission the the real culprit was still at large. That wouldn't go down too well would it?

Wolff

its not just the US holding him responsible - his own group claimed responsibility for most of the beheadings - or maybe the US is posting to their websites now.

On the issue of how many legs he has - its easily answered now - none

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Earthman wrote:

I'll do a deal with you...
If your next few posts on politics are as spammy as the last few,you will be banned.
This is a discussion forum not a post count forum.

its OK to have different opinions on issues.

Zombrex

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

its OK to have different opinions on issues.

Your not really expressing an opinion, you are just posting rather nonsensical posts I assume are tring to lead to some conspiricy theory that the US Army could not have identified the body, despite the fact you have been told how they identified him.

Dental records for this man would have been widely know with in the international intelligence community. And (without bashing out your own teeth) dental records or fingerprints don't change, so even if he sawed off both his legs and both his arms his body could still be identified from his remains. You only need his head to assume he is dead, since most people can't live without their head.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Wicknight wrote:

Your not really expressing an opinion, you are just posting rather nonsensical posts I assume are tring to lead to some conspiricy theory that the US Army could not have identified the body, despite the fact you have been told how they identified him.

Dental records for this man would have been widely know with in the international intelligence community. And (without bashing out your own teeth) dental records or fingerprints don't change, so even if he sawed off both his legs and both his arms his body could still be identified from his remains. You only need his head to assume he is dead, since most people can't live without their head.

point taken...
here is my opinion, i don't believe America. they have been caught lying about everything since 911, so why believe them about this.
i think that they are in danger of running out of people to point the finger at and blame.

lostexpectation

Wolff wrote:

Every single report I have read has stated he was jordanian - how can they be annoyed this is emphasised when the man was Jordanian !

Maybe the iraqis dont like foreigners because they keep coming to their country and blowing themselves and innocent iraqis up - Saudis, Yemenis jordanians syrians etc - they seem to be killing a lot more than the Americans.

I think its fair to say most of the casualties of the insugents are Iraqis not americans a fact that seems to be overlooked a lot.

Also maybe the contractors for gas sewers and electricity could get the country going again if the insurgents would let them.

I think the americans would gladly rebulid and scaper if they were let - but this has turned into a nice holy war between Sunni and Shia another fact thats seems to be ignored.

This man was an animal held to be personally responsible for at least two beheadings by the way - an appalling way to treat a fellow human being and one which made me sick to the stomach.

He died like the dog he was - I think even Osama will be glad he was put down.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahha is that fox news script you're re-typing there?

Wolff

thanks lostexpectation for that....

with razor wit like that....Oscar Wilde can rest in peace

Now do you care to point out which part of my post you have a problem with ?

and can you back up any counter claim you may have ?

Im not pro american - I certainly didnt support the war - but the idea of muslims insurgents flocking to Iraq to fight the americans is nonsense - they are flocking there to kill shias....

How many of the 31 killed yesterday were americans ? how many american soldiers are killed every week ? how many muslims are killed by other muslims every week ?

well ?

lostexpectation

Wolff wrote:

thanks lostexpectation for that....
Im not pro american - I certainly didnt support the war - but the idea of muslims insurgents flocking to Iraq to fight the americans is nonsense - they are flocking there to kill shias....

ok you have point there, btu the idea the the americans want to leave, that the dind't know exactly what was going to happen and planned for that to happen

and you're telling me the americans didn't and don't stoke that holywar?

meanwhile in Afghanistan

The NATO military alliance has pledged to nearly double its peace-keeping force in Afghanistan, from 9,000 troops to 17,000.

The decision, which was taken at a meeting in Brussels, comes after a sharp increase in violence in the south of the country.

Suicide bombers and other attacks by Taliban supporters have led to hundreds of deaths in the region in the past month.

ah democracy FTW

sovtek

Wolff wrote:

thanks lostexpectation for that....

with razor wit like that....Oscar Wilde can rest in peace

Now do you care to point out which part of my post you have a problem with ?

and can you back up any counter claim you may have ?

Im not pro american - I certainly didnt support the war - but the idea of muslims insurgents flocking to Iraq to fight the americans is nonsense - they are flocking there to kill shias....

How many of the 31 killed yesterday were americans ? how many american soldiers are killed every week ? how many muslims are killed by other muslims every week ?

well ?

How many of these "foreign fighters" have they caught or killed. All evidence points to an Iraqi led resistance to occupation.
This is a PR stunt and a joke. It's very much like Saddam's statue, Saddam's capture, Lynch's "rescue", Pat Tillman's heroic death...etc etc.
The Americans have cornered the market on killing in Iraq

civdef

All evidence points to an Iraqi led resistance to occupation.

If that was the case, why are the various insurgents so busy killing fellow Iraqis?

sovtek

civdef wrote:

If that was the case, why are the various insurgents so busy killing fellow Iraqis?

Many of the Iraqis that are killed are Iraqi police or men waiting to get jobs as Iraqi police. That would easily be considered cooperating with the occupation.
Then there are possibly rival groups killing each other...or they could be trying to foment civil war in Iraq to reduce the resistance's effectiveness...it's an old tactic when you are loosing.

Wolff

many are iraqi police....many, many more are ordinary iraqi men women and children...a lot are targeted coming from mosques and on shia holy days - indeed the bloodiest massacres where most people have died have been exactly like this.

the trouble with the foreign fighters is they tend to blow themselves up a lot so arent easy to identify

except one poor saudi who lost both legs when the truck bomb exploded before he reached his target

but not to worry a nice saudi prince flew him home and paid for his medical expenses. now thats what i call a PR stunt....

if you want evidence of foreign fighters just look at Musab al-Zarqawi...Jordanian

Im not making a point of saying they are all foreign - indeed most of the insurgents are former Baathists and sadam cronies - but thats worse imo as the are killing fellow iraqis

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

How many of these "foreign fighters" have they caught or killed. All evidence points to an Iraqi led resistance to occupation.

In fairness to Wolff, (s)he did point out that this has turned into a nice holy war between Sunni and Shia another fact thats seems to be ignored.

I'd argue that this is even more accurate than your description in some respects. The majority of the problems in Iraq are arguably no longer resistance to occupation, but rather jockeying for position in nature.

This is a PR stunt and a joke.

How, exactly, does that work? Billing him as a greater threat than he was...that may have been a PR stunt....but how is killing him a PR stunt? Already, everyone from Bush to his critics has said this won't change much in the overall insurgency picture, so exactly what PR is served here? What stunt is being pulled?

The Americans have cornered the market on killing in Iraq

I thought a moment ago you said that all eviudence points to an Iraqi-led resistance. Are you now saying this resistance doesn't actually kill anyone?

Or is it ok to engage in such hyperbole as long as its used to attack the US?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

civdef wrote:

If that was the case, why are the various insurgents so busy killing fellow Iraqis?

listen the yanks were caught already carrying out covert operations pretending to be insurgents, planting bombs and killing Iraqis to justify foreign troops policing the country

are you saying they are not capable of doing more of this...

how do we over here know who is really doing the killing... through western press who are inside US compounds protected by the yanks...

from the couple of reports from people on the ground... all this insurgents is not to be believed... in fact in a recent report the common Iraqi says they were better off with Saddam...

now may get banned for this, but it had to be said.

civdef

listen the yanks were caught already carrying out covert operations pretending to be insurgents, planting bombs and killing Iraqis to justify foreign troops policing the country

I'm sure the evidence for this is only a mouse-click away...

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Let’s see. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the phantom terrorist with super-human powers, was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, and then he was killed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, followed by a death during Operation Matador near the town of Qaim on the Syrian border, and finally he was killed, along with his mentor, Osama bin Laden, in the besieged city of Fallujah. Now we are told he was “killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad [in the town of Hibhib near Baquba],” according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Reuters reports.

bonkey

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

from the couple of reports from people on the ground...

What people? What reports?
I ask because such "trivial" information would be key in establishing how credible such claims are....as would the actual claims themselves.

in fact in a recent report the common Iraqi says they were better off with Saddam...

So the common Iraqi doesn't think much of living under US occupation / interim government. Sounds like anm arguemnt in favour of insurgency, not one refuting its existence.

Incidentally, its a fairly common trend for people to look back on previous eras and conclude they were better off regardless of whether or not they were. People keep complaining how the country (Ireland) has gone to the dogs in teh past 2 decades, ignoring the massive unemployment, emigration, high tax rates, even poorer health care etc. etc. that we suffered from. Many Russians, even up to today, claim they were better off under the Soviet empire, even though conditions as a whole are actually slightly better.

People who don't get what they were promised tend to feel they were better off even if things have improved. Its a well-established trait. So Iraqis saying "we weer better off under Saddam" means relatively little. It certainly doesn't suggest there's no insurgency

Hobbes

civdef wrote:

I'm sure the evidence for this is only a mouse-click away...

To get you started on that topic.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313656

or if you prefer google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=british+special+forces+arrested+in+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

bonkey

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

Let’s see. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the phantom terrorist with super-human powers, was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, and then he was killed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, followed by a death during Operation Matador near the town of Qaim on the Syrian border, and finally he was killed, along with his mentor, Osama bin Laden, in the besieged city of Fallujah. Now we are told he was “killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad [in the town of Hibhib near Baquba],” according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Reuters reports.

So you're saying you have no evidence of US pretending to be insurgents then? Because if that request for evidence is what you're answering, none of these points have anythnig to do with it.

Also, it should be noted that in previous cases tey said they may have got him but had no body. This time, they've confirmed it body and all. I would assume you can see the distinction that would make.

jc

Hobbes

tbh I think they are blowing the capture way out of proportion in the US media. They practically making out he was a one man army and super evil mastermind (despite administration downplaying it).

Btw, kind of funny in her earlier videos he is wearing US runners and holding a US weapon (the wrong way). At that time the Pentagon labelled him as "incompetent".

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Hobbes wrote:

To get you started on that topic.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313656

or if you prefer google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=british+special+forces+arrested+in+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

can you just imagine what goes unreported.
unbelievable

bugler

He was a particularly nasty piece of work. Politics aside, he's no loss to humanity.

I think a lot of people are grabbing the wrong end of the stick with regard to this issue. The Hydra theory only really holds water if we assume that the leader killed is popular and there are plenty of willing leaders ready to take his place. Al-Zarqawi was not popular. He had alienated even other insurgent groups who refused to co-operate with him. He murdered more Shia Iraqis than coalition troops.

His death is good news for Iraqis opposed to sectarianism. There are plenty of insurgents in Iraq. But there are few people like Al-Zarqawi in Iraq, or indeed, the world.

davelerave

they don't know if he was bombed or shot to death yet .or so they're sayin.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

davelerave wrote:

they don't know if he was bombed or shot to death yet .or so they're sayin.

here we go...

civdef

Hobbes wrote:

To get you started on that topic.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313656

or if you prefer google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=british+special+forces+arrested+in+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I'd prefer something credible tbh.

Wolff

Hobbes

those two links you posted are quite simply nonsense - i take it there are other more balanced and respected sources for the claims that the us and britain plan and carry out subvervise bombing in Iraq.

one quote


"Some such claims can be briskly dismissed. In mid-May 2005, for example, a group calling itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" accused U.S. troops "of detonating car bombs and falsely accusing militants" (http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications45605&Category=publications&Subcategory=0). For even the most credulous, this could at best be a case of the pot calling the kettle soot-stained. But it’s not clear why anyone would want to believe this claim, coming as it does from a group or groupuscule purportedly led by the wholly mythical al-Zarqawi—and one whose very name affiliates it with terror bombers. These people, if they exist, might themselves have good reason to blame their own crimes on others. "

so who exactly died yesterday if they dont even think he existed in the first place ?

it also mentions one incident - one where two soldiers opened fire on police when their car was stopped - this is hardly proof that the insurgancy is backed by the usa and britain - i remember a similar situation at a funeral in Northern Ireland.

the reason i think this is such a big deal is the fact we were told he is unreachable and on the run will never be caught...just like Bin Laden and yet from the looks of it he was betrayed, just like Bin Laden will be one day and I think the americans are drawing a lot of comfort from that.

A lot of people dont like the fact that muslims like killing other muslims

Iran/Iraq war proved that

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Btw, kind of funny in her earlier videos he is wearing US runners and holding a US weapon (the wrong way). At that time the Pentagon labelled him as "incompetent".

Washington Post ran an article last April (or thereabouts) claiming the US Administration had knowingly "pimped" his significance. Given that a ton of commentators have referenced this in the past few days (and the stuff about how they didn't take the 3 previous chances at the guy, allegedly cause it would have weakened their case for war with Iraq) a quick google should find it.