Iraqi PM: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Bishop Sonart, since when have we really cared about collateral damage?

Since Abu Ghraid, and certainly since Haditha and Ishaqi. The military may be overly heavy handed but they're not terrorists. Note the big deal they've been making recently about how deaths at U.S. checkpoints has dropped from 7 a month to 1 a month. They understand PR as well as anyone.

Quote by: brien 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.

So? To what advantage? Like I said, why not just shoot the little bastard and say he died in a firefight? They found him, used their hi-tech googaws to bomb him, killed him and now they're cheering because something actually worked. Did you really think everything was going to go wrong in Iraq all the time? It just sounds too SOP to be a conspiracy.

What I can't discount is that certain people are going to see "conspiracy" every time something happens and some detail seems fishy. In 9/11 it all began with not understanding how the Towers could have collapsed. Suddenly not believing that steel could give way leads us on a fantastic journey of unseen sappers, remotely piloted airliners and faked phones calls. Now, Zarqawi somehow managed to survive his massive injuries for 20 minutes while no one else did. OOooooOOOoooo.... conspiracy. Maybe he was sitting on the crapper in some far corner of the house. Maybe he had a tougher constitution. Who knows. Stranger sh!t has happened. I see no reason for a conspiracy because I see no logical point for one. Our guys won one for a change, war supporters will cheer for a week and then it'll be back to the same 'ol same 'ol.

.

[bishop]

Quote by: sonart Since Abu Ghraid, and certainly since Haditha and Ishaqi. The military may be overly heavy handed but they're not terrorists. Note the big deal they've been making recently about how deaths at U.S. checkpoints has dropped from 7 a month to 1 a month. They understand PR as well as anyone.

those are poor examples.. those are examples of renegade soldiers acting outside of their orders.. a more accurate example of what i was talking about is the collateral damage that people summarily ignore and write off, like the civilians killed in this quirky bombing - i.e. during normal combat operations. (and we must have cared a whole lot about civilian deaths when we used white phosphorus at fallujah.)

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop those are poor examples.. those are examples of renegade soldiers acting outside of their orders.. a more accurate example of what i was talking about is the collateral damage that people summarily ignore and write off, like the civilians killed in this quirky bombing - i.e. during normal combat operations. (and we must have cared a whole lot about civilian deaths when we used white phosphorus at fallujah.)

You guys are all reaching. Might cut yourself on Occam's razor on this one.

[bishop]

did you read the part where i said that i neither believe the conspiracy theory or the government's account? just asking, because your response implies that i do believe the theory....

all information on this story is coming from the government.. the same government that has lied to us time and time again. while you're simply accepting the government's story without question, i'm reluctant to do so.. there are no real facts here as far as i'm concerned - information from the government should not be immediately accepted as being fact.

i've also said that the circumstances surrounding his death are largely immaterial, and won't make much noticeable difference in iraq.. it will still be a violent hellhole, with or without zarqawi. that seems to me to be the most important point at the end of the day - regardless of whether/not you choose to swallow the government's story.

(and, i've repeatedly stated and repeated such comments throughout this thread - it's amazing and wholly unimpressive how you want to incessantly pigeon-hole and distort what i've said.)

[gr8fuldaniel]

"Who Invited Zarqawi?" by Greg Palast

[Zeebadee]

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. .

Well, they said they knew without a doubt that he was in that house. Why didn't they just go and get him? You must recognize that it's the government's total lack of credibility that fuel these theories. It doesn't help that bush really needs the boost this will give him in the public opinion polls. Considering the low ratings that bush has been enjoying lately, I don't think it's too far fetched to suspect that this doofus might have been kept on ice until the most advantageous time for him to surface. Add in the discrepancies about his being alive or dead and the government's past lies and you've got a lot of suspicion. I don't believe a single word bush says unless I can personally verify it.

[PatrickHenry]

Is the US military occupying Iraq?

Or is there a War going on?

If a War, then airstrikes are acceptable. If an occupation, then police work is the means to the end of securing peace. Why drop bombs on a civilian target? Even if Zarqawi was a serial mass killer, the man should have been arrested and charged, not killed in an airstrike that shows how little the US regards the civilians of Iraq. The UN should revise its approval of the occupation. Airstrikes should be out.

If it is a War, then Geneva Conventions apply to all partisan fighters in the War Zone...

Can't have it both ways...

[Mr.Vicchio]

PH comes in with his tottaly absurd logic.

Police work to capture terrorist... yes PH, That was the SOP during the Clinton Admin.... see how well THAT worked?

For someone so smart, you constantly amaze me when you say things like that... really you do. Also, Occupation denotes rule, we do not rule Iraq, and we will be leaving, and leaving the future of that cuntry, in the voters of Iraq's hands. Amazing PH, really amazing.

[Matt W]

And being in Iraq isn't creating more terrorists? Really Mr V....it's a short-sighted policy and a half.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Zeebadee Well, they said they knew without a doubt that he was in that house. Why didn't they just go and get him?

And why put ground troops at risk when you can simply put two bombs on him.

Quote by: Zeebadee You must recognize that it's the government's total lack of credibility that fuel these theories. It doesn't help that bush really needs the boost this will give him in the public opinion polls.

So? The military got a break and pulled off a successful mission. If that helps Bush, then so be it. Like I said, things can't go wrong all the time. That doesn't mean that when something goes right it's a conspiracy.

Quote by: Zeebadee Considering the low ratings that bush has been enjoying lately, I don't think it's too far fetched to suspect that this doofus might have been kept on ice until the most advantageous time for him to surface.

Ridiculous. Bush has needed good news like this for a year now, so there's nothing special about killing him now. Even better would have been able to parade him around as a captive. We found an opportunity to take out a major enemy asset and took it. You guys are trying too hard.

Quote by: Patrick Henry If a War, then airstrikes are acceptable. If an occupation, then police work is the means to the end of securing peace. Why drop bombs on a civilian target?

Must be nice to live in a world so black and white, Patrick. Whatever you want to call it, we're in a war in Iraq. have no problem whatsoever seeing al-Zarqawi as a military commander and legitimate target.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sonart Quote by: Patrick Henry If a War, then airstrikes are acceptable. If an occupation, then police work is the means to the end of securing peace. Why drop bombs on a civilian target? Must be nice to live in a world so black and white, Patrick. Whatever you want to call it, we're in a war in Iraq. have no problem whatsoever seeing al-Zarqawi as a military commander and legitimate target.

For a guy that doesn't like the war, you sure like its methods...

[bishop]

i just think it's a pompous tone he's adopted in defense of the government's story. although, not all democrats support withdrawal, especially the hillary clinton brand of democrat - meaning that they are no different than bush as far as the policy in iraq is concerned. i personally don't understand how someone would so adamantly defend the government's story when the only source of information IS the government - the same government that has lied too many times to count.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: sonart Whatever you want to call it, we're in a war in Iraq. have no problem whatsoever seeing al-Zarqawi as a military commander and legitimate target.

But not just ANY military Commander. He served/serves at the pleasure of those who hired him. Everything is playing out according to the script. Right down to the orchestrated quagmire and the chaos that provides a distraction from the stealing.

Vic is acting like this is all going to blow over. (After all didnt Rumsfeld predict "Maybe 6 days or 6 weeks....I DOUBT 6 months")
Check it out V:
A bill was passed yesterday that allowed permanent military bases in Iraq : Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition

Maybe after the last drop of oil is pumped.......

[RickSp]

More wild stories. Not sure what to believe. Not sure it matters in the long run.

Was Al-Zarqawi Beaten After Bombing?

An Iraqi man who was one of the first people on the scene of the U.S. airstrike targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said he saw American troops beating a man who had a beard like the al Qaeda leader. The witness, who lives near the house where al-Zarqawi spent his last days, said he saw the man lying on the ground near an irrigation canal. He was badly wounded but still alive, the man told Associated Press Television News. U.S. troops arriving on the scene wrapped the man's head in an Arab robe and began beating him, said the local man, who refused to give his name or show his face to the camera. His account could not be independently verified.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: PatrickHenry For a guy that doesn't like the war, you sure like its methods...

For one, Patrick, I'm just saying this isn't some conspiracy. But to your point, just because I oppose the war as a hopeless cause doesn't mean I oppose our military trying to fight it the best and only way they can. Now I suppose we could have mounted a quicky ground operation to go knock on his door, read him his rights and slap him in handcuffs. But I suspect the presence of U.S. troops in that area may have set off a few alarms, if not attacks on the mission itself. Al-Zarqawi was a brutal butcher, reponsible not only for killing our troops but probably thousands of inoncent Iraqi civilians. He was in an isolated location, away from populated areas, and anyone that was in that house with him knew exactly who he was and that he was a highly valued military target. Their bad luck, but I doubt that families of those he murdered are sympathetic to your crocodile tears.

Y'know, it really, really burns me when war supporters accuse me of supporting terrorists because I oppose the war, or that I oppose the war simply because I hate Bush. It burns me almost as much to find out that some who oppose the war seem to actually fit that description.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel But not just ANY military Commander. He served/serves at the pleasure of those who hired him. Everything is playing out according to the script. Right down to the orchestrated quagmire and the chaos that provides a distraction from the stealing.

Spare us your moonbeam conspiracy claptrap, Daniel.

.

[Jack]

By popular request:

Two US doctors have begun an autopsy on the body of top militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a US-led operation in Iraq this week. Questions have arisen over how Zarqawi died since the Americans revealed he had still been alive following the bombing of a safe house by US planes.

Source

Not that the results will be accepted as factual by many people. The conspiracies will continue.

[bishop]

even though zarqawi's dead, the decapitation executions continue...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ing/index.html


here's to one man's death not making a bit of difference...

[PatrickHenry]

More dust devils around this story:
http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/002050.html

1. Did Iran have a role in Zarqawi's death? Perhaps information on his whereabouts was offered up by the Iranians as a pro quid pro for US 'understandings' about its nuclear program? 2. Was the airstrike that killed Zarqawi essentially an intervention on the side of the Shia in the Iraqi civil war? In an attempt to salvage something from Dubya's Iraq adventure, has the US become a bit player in the ongoing drama of Iraqi sectarian politics?

[bishop]

what's a "bit player"?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop what's a "bit player"?

Just the writer of that blog thinking that the real story there isn't US intervention, but how the millions of locals wind up...