Iraqi PM: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel US military releases bomb video .

Take a look at the formation created by the initial shock wave of the explosion. It does not form along the lines of a circle, as one would expect from the omnidirectional normality associated with high explosives.

Instead, the wave spreads in straight lines, some would say forming an X. But it is not an X. It is instead a cross. This was ordered by George Bush to demonstrate to the world the superiority of Christianity to Islam.

Zarqawi was captured and killed by Dan Quayle in Sri Lanka, at their annual strategy meeting. Abu knew that the time for martyrdom had come, and thus did not resist. He was then chryogenically frozen and secreted away to a "safe house" owned by Haliburton where his body was held in stasis until the bombs dropped. They did not take into account the affect of the palm trees on the explosive forces, and the body, still frozen, was not damaged as much as they hoped it would be.

Louis Farakhan is most upset. In his meeting with Dennis Hastert, he had brought up the palm trees, but was overruled by Robert Dornan, head of the planning of the event.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Sonart, you mis-attributted that quote.

[gr8fuldaniel]

So Ape, you are going with the "My God can beat up your God" mentality?

That doesnt seem a bit spiritually juvenile to you?

There is so much bullshit in your last post, I cant tell when you are kidding. Do you have a source for any of that tripe? Especially the part about Junior choosing a Jesus Bomb....

[brien]

Quote by: Sonart . {{YAWN}} I swear, you boys can make a conspiracy out of any damn thing. 'I postulate' that we would have liked nothing better than to have held him, questioned him and put him on a big, showy Iraqi government trial to milk all that publicity possible, just like with Saddam. .

Sonart, not my quote. I will comment though. It is my personal opinion that the military might have interrogated him and likely found he would tell them nothing. After they were done with him, they ordered the air strike, and then took him to the bomb site to make it look as if he was killed by the air strike there. It is there that they killed him after the bomb strike. We have no autopsy report, indeed no autopsy. Nor will we probably ever have one because it would tell the true tale of his exact physical condition at the time of his death. Furthermore, a Zarqawi trial would have been a circus that I am certain the US government would indeed conveniently evade if it was at all possible.

Of course I have no proof, nor will we ever have any proof, but given the military and their conduct in this invasion of another sovereign nation, I would not be so quick to discount this scenario. It is quite plausible, imo, and I don't usually agree with conspiricy theories unless the official government version of something resembles a slice of swiss cheese.

A official autopsy report would settle all of these questions that are not only reasonable but surely are required by citizens of a free and open society. I will bet we will probably never see these questions answered and thus leaving the door open to the conspiricy theory that no one would like to see hanging like a lynching in a ancient southern oak tree stinking in the noon day sun.

[bishop]

ditto to that...

this theory has much more credibility than the 9/11 conspiracy theory, which i don't agree with at all. i also agree that we'd rather have him dead than on trial, especially since saddam's trial has been a total joke thus far. the government's story is very questionable, and since they've lied to us soooo many times (the most recent proven example is the tale of the massacred civilians being killed by ied's) it seems foolhardy to simply accept this story "just because"..

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop ditto to that... this theory has much more credibility than the 9/11 conspiracy theory, which i don't agree with at all. i also agree that we'd rather have him dead than on trial, especially since saddam's trial has been a total joke thus far. the government's story is very questionable, and since they've lied to us soooo many times (the most recent proven example is the tale of the massacred civilians being killed by ied's) it seems foolhardy to simply accept this story "just because"..

I tend to look a the information available and try to choose the version that make the most sense. Bombing a building in hope of killing a "high value" target" is exactly what the US has done over and over again. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it seems more likely than having captured Zarkawi and then staging hsi death. If they captured Zarkawi they would have likely flown him out of the country as they did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp I tend to look a the information available and try to choose the version that make the most sense. Bombing a building in hope of killing a "high value" target" is exactly what the US has done over and over again. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it seems more likely than having captured Zarkawi and then staging hsi death. If they captured Zarkawi they would have likely flown him out of the country as they did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Rick; I share your sobering thoughts but there are nagging questions here. Why no autopsy? Why no full body pics of Zarqawi ? You would think since there have been so many screw ups in Iraq, the government would go out of their way to put all of the evidence out to the public view in order to be best accepted by the entire world. But they haven't, which is why I am suspicious. Now I may be way off base here, but I want some answers that will probably never come.

[bishop]

i too believe that bombing and extradition is our usual policy.. (if they had previously captured him, of course, they could've gotten all the info from him and then staged his death.)

it's primarily the other stuff that i question.

1. they said they knew he had been using this location for weeks.
2. they said they had the place surrounded so that there was little risk of him disappearing. (that's why they said the jets could take their time.)
3. zarqawi miraculously wasn't immediately killed by the two massive bombs, landing on the very house he was staying in.
4. all of the information has been provided to the press via the military (which you too agree has a strong track record of lying to the public).

simply put, there's something fishy to this story imo. i'm not saying that i firmly believe that the alternative theory is true, but i think that it's just as viable a reality as the military's story. i'm either a victim of the boy who cried wolf, or the believers have simply been fooled once again by the administration.

at the end of the day, though, his death is largely irrelevant to the overall situation in iraq - which i doubt will improve even with him out of the picture.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Apeman81 Take a look at the formation created by the initial shock wave of the explosion. It does not form along the lines of a circle, as one would expect from the omnidirectional normality associated with high explosives. Instead, the wave spreads in straight lines, some would say forming an X. But it is not an X. It is instead a cross. This was ordered by George Bush to demonstrate to the world the superiority of Christianity to Islam. Zarqawi was captured and killed by Dan Quayle in Sri Lanka, at their annual strategy meeting. Abu knew that the time for martyrdom had come, and thus did not resist. He was then chryogenically frozen and secreted away to a "safe house" owned by Haliburton where his body was held in stasis until the bombs dropped. They did not take into account the affect of the palm trees on the explosive forces, and the body, still frozen, was not damaged as much as they hoped it would be. Louis Farakhan is most upset. In his meeting with Dennis Hastert, he had brought up the palm trees, but was overruled by Robert Dornan, head of the planning of the event.

There's no need for satire in this thread please.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: gr8fldaniel So Ape, you are going with the "My God can beat up your God" mentality? That doesnt seem a bit spiritually juvenile to you?

He's being sardonically absurd, Daniel, making fun of the conspiricy loons.

Quote by: brien Sonart, not my quote. I will comment though. It is my personal opinion that the military might have interrogated him and likely found he would tell them nothing. After they were done with him, they ordered the air strike, and then took him to the bomb site to make it look as if he was killed by the air strike there.

That's just silly. Capturing him would be a bigger coup than killing him. They could either ship him off to Gitmo to rot, or, even better, put him on a public show trial in Iraq. And why the government would engage in a conspiracy when they're already in big trouble for covering up murders is beyond me.

Quote by: brien It is quite plausible, imo, and I don't usually agree with conspiricy theories unless the official government version of something resembles a slice of swiss cheese.

Then obviously we disagree. I find the story perfectly plausible, considering how long and hard they've been looking for him.

Quote by: RickSp Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it seems more likely than having captured Zarkawi and then staging hsi death. If they captured Zarkawi they would have likely flown him out of the country as they did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Indeed. If they'd captured him, why not simply shoot him and claim there was a firefight, rather than going to the trouble of bombing a building and killing women and children along with the butcher. Gawd knows we have enough trouble with that already.

.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart If they'd captured him, why not simply shoot him and claim there was a firefight, rather than going to the trouble of bombing a building and killing women and children along with the butcher. Gawd knows we have enough trouble with that already.

Exactly. There is no bad way to kill Zarkawi. If this was some sort of deception, why is it so messy? You would think a lie could be constructed more neatly. There have been promises of more information. Time will tell.

[bishop]

sonart, since when have we really cared about collateral damage? do you need a list of all the atrocities (big and small) that we've committed in this war to convince you how little we care about killing civilians? precision-guided munitions were not intended to limit civilian deaths - they were developed to kill the intended target with pinpoint accuracy.

it's still pretty hard to believe how these two bombs left zarqawi alive immediately after impact. i wonder how many other people were found alive when the troops came - or was zarqawi the only miracle case?

and the notion that we had every reason to make a spectacle of his capture is pure opinion imo. saddam's trial has become a circus and an embarrassment, and it's certainly possible that they wanted to avoid the same with zarqawi. your logic suggesting that we would've paraded his capture is no more solid than brien's and mine suggesting that they'd prefer to kill him instead and parade his (staged) death. the military certainly could have attempted to capture him, since they have stated they had the place completely surrounded to the point where there was little chance that zarqawi could escape. so why didn't they just move in and try to get him alive like they did with saddam's dead son uday?

both sides of this argument have little credible facts as their basis - so it's nearly impossible to say which side is correct. i do know, however, that the military and administration have a solid track record of lying to the public nearly every step of the way... bush's poll numbers suck, congress's poll numbers suck, the public is continually becoming opposed to this war, etc... what could be better than touting the killing of the top al qaeda man in iraq? (and would could be better than the convenience of the military controlling all information surrounding this story?)

[rmnunez]

I don't think an autopsy should be required or would be expected, I doubt there were many when they did Vietnam and this wasn't the practice in WW2. They killed half a dozen or more people and one of them looked like one of the "most wanted", turns out he was and recovered intact enough to corroborate the fact with a picture. It is inappropriate to question whether the body was surgically altered to appear more presentable of if the "crime scene" was tampered with. The only discussion should be on the significance of the killing, its impact on the effort. In this regard the operation was a success and bodes well for future efforts, apparently some valuable intelligence was gained and up to 17 additional raids have been conducted on that intelligence netting dozens of suspects, caches of weapons and plans for future insurgent action.

[bishop]

Quote by: nunez It is inappropriate to question whether the body was surgically altered to appear more presentable of if the "crime scene" was tampered with.

not that i believe his body was surgically altered, but why is it "inappropriate" to ask such a question? a logical extension of your comment would mean that it's inappropriate to question any of the military's/administration's claims, which is totally absurd. (maybe it was also inappropriate to question bush's fables about wmd's?)

[dreamer]

It looks like frost bite to me maybe he had been stored for a later date.
Dreamer

[brien]

Quote by: Sonart . That's just silly. Capturing him would be a bigger coup than killing him. They could either ship him off to Gitmo to rot, or, even better, put him on a public show trial in Iraq. And why the government would engage in a conspiracy when they're already in big trouble for covering up murders is beyond me. Then obviously we disagree. I find the story perfectly plausible, considering how long and hard they've been looking for him. .

Call it silly if you want Sonart, but you can't discount the idea I have postulated given the entire backgound of lies and misrepresentations in this so called "war". Besides, they did capture him, and he then just "died". The NY Times reported that in today's edition.

You don't seriously think we would ship him off to Gitmo with all of the problems we have in holding prisoners there and in "secret" camps around the world. Look at the fiasco they call the trial of Saddam. Nope, it is quite credible that they just wanted to do away with him as quickly as possible. No trail, no jury, no defense, no Geneva Accords, no legal mess. I am surprised you give the military such a broad level of credibility.

I don't think it really matters how long they have been hunting him. What matters is they caught him and killed him. Case closed, now on to the next one. How convenient.

As a side note, I don't really care how they did it. All I am citing are questions that we have no answers for, and probably never will have answers for, when it comes to this situation. I just want the truth. Proof positive and it can't be supplied by the military because they can't provide a autopsy. How convenient.

You still haven't answered why the government didn't take the corpse for an autopsy. This would have been legal and definitive. I say they didn't hold the corpse for an autopsy on purpose. It certainly seems to indicate a coverup. We will probably never know the truth that an autopsy could provide in this case. So insist the military is correct in their version all you desire, but until a autopsy report is released, I for one will be ever suspicious. You on the other hand, seem to accept their version on their word. Not me. Maybe I am a bit more cynical.

Anyway, have a good weekend.

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think an autopsy should be required or would be expected, I doubt there were many when they did Vietnam and this wasn't the practice in WW2. They killed half a dozen or more people and one of them looked like one of the "most wanted", turns out he was and recovered intact enough to corroborate the fact with a picture. It is inappropriate to question whether the body was surgically altered to appear more presentable of if the "crime scene" was tampered with. The only discussion should be on the significance of the killing, its impact on the effort. In this regard the operation was a success and bodes well for future efforts, apparently some valuable intelligence was gained and up to 17 additional raids have been conducted on that intelligence netting dozens of suspects, caches of weapons and plans for future insurgent action.

rmunez; Just the opposite here. An autopsy would be definitive as to the cause of death and to the condition of his physical being at the time of death. Something that could protect the military from inquisitive minds had they not had something to hide here.

Given the track record of cover ups in this so called war, I would think the military would rise to the occasion to make a definitive and final statement based upon the results of an autopsy in order to make sure the entire situation happened exactly like they say it has happened. But they haven't and thus my suspicions.

[brien]

Quote by: bishop sonart, since when have we really cared about collateral damage? do you need a list of all the atrocities (big and small) that we've committed in this war to convince you how little we care about killing civilians? precision-guided munitions were not intended to limit civilian deaths - they were developed to kill the intended target with pinpoint accuracy. it's still pretty hard to believe how these two bombs left zarqawi alive immediately after impact. i wonder how many other people were found alive when the troops came - or was zarqawi the only miracle case? and the notion that we had every reason to make a spectacle of his capture is pure opinion imo. saddam's trial has become a circus and an embarrassment, and it's certainly possible that they wanted to avoid the same with zarqawi. your logic suggesting that we would've paraded his capture is no more solid than brien's and mine suggesting that they'd prefer to kill him instead and parade his (staged) death. the military certainly could have attempted to capture him, since they have stated they had the place completely surrounded to the point where there was little chance that zarqawi could escape. so why didn't they just move in and try to get him alive like they did with saddam's dead son uday? both sides of this argument have little credible facts as their basis - so it's nearly impossible to say which side is correct. i do know, however, that the military and administration have a solid track record of lying to the public nearly every step of the way... bush's poll numbers suck, congress's poll numbers suck, the public is continually becoming opposed to this war, etc... what could be better than touting the killing of the top al qaeda man in iraq? (and would could be better than the convenience of the military controlling all information surrounding this story?)

Well stated Bishop. Furthermore, I think, as I have written to rmunez, the military had every reason to conduct an autopsy to keep the whole affair above board so as to protect their interests in what they say they did and when they say they did it. We have no evidence because we have no autopsy. How convenient. Once again, we have to take their word at face value based upon pictures. I yi yi :rolleyes:

Se ya all on Moan-day.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Autolykos To my knowledge, the largest amount of damage caused by conventional and nuclear explosives comes from the shockwave produced by the explosive chemical (or nuclear) reaction. This shockwave is produced from the extraordinary speed at which the reaction occurs and its interaction with the surrounding environment (air, buildings, people, etc). - Rob

VERY GOOD!


And what does the shockwave do to the human body? The blast doesn't always harm the outside, but it's hell on the innards.

Anyway, whatever, if any of you think that this was some sor tof set up, this is all lies, yadda yadda yadda... I got some beach front property in Eastern Montana to sell you.

[rmnunez]

It just keeps getting better:

"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could barely speak, but he struggled and tried to get away from American soldiers as he lay dying on a stretcher in the ruins of his hideout. The US forces recognized his face, and knew they had the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Initially, the US military had said al-Zarqawi was killed outright. But Friday new details emerged of his final moments. Al-Zarqawi somehow managed to survive the impact of the bombs, weapons so powerful they tore a huge crater in the date palm forest where the house was nestled just outside the town of Baqouba. Iraqi police reached the scene first, and found the 39-year-old al-Zarqawi alive. "He mumbled something, but it was indistinguishable and it was very short," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for US-led forces in Iraq, said Friday of the Jordanian-born terrorist's last words. Iraqi police pulled him from the flattened home and placed him on a makeshift stretcher. US troops arrived, saw that al-Zarqawi was conscious, and tried to provide medical treatment, the spokesman said. "He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was the US military," Caldwell told Pentagon reporters via videoconference from Baghdad. Al-Zarqawi "attempted to, sort of, turn away off the stretcher," he said. "Everybody re-secured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he'd received from this airstrike."

It is nice to know Zarqawi wasn’t instantly blown to smithereens, hopefully it was a painful and agonizing last few minutes, how long do you think it would take the Iraqi police to get to the place once the dust settled?

So much blood covered al-Zarqawi's body that US forces cleaned him up before taking photographs. "Despite the fact that this person actually had no regard for human life, we were not going to treat him in the same manner," Caldwell said.

This is inconceivable, infidels are not known to handle the dead with respect, they must have been trying to cover up evidence of their misdeeds. With any luck those forensic reports might reveal Zarqawi was sexually humiliated and tortured before the gringoes allowed him to slink off and meet his maker.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060609/D8I4VN101.html