MSNBC reports Al-Zarqawi killed in Iraq

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Professor Cole:

[q]Zarqawi had been a significant leader of the Salafi Jihadi radical strain of Islamist volunteers in Iraq, and had succeeded in spreading his ideas to local Iraqis in places like Ramadi. He engaged in grandstanding when he renamed his group "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia," even though he had early been critical of al-Qaeda and had a long rivalry with it. For background, see the Zarqawi file.

There is no evidence of operational links between his Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don't expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon.

Baqubah is dangerous not because of Zarqawi but because it is a mixed Sunni-Shiite and Kurdish area that had Baath military installations and arms depots, and enough Sunni Arabs from the old regime know about them to work them against rising Shiite and Kurdish dominance.

On the other hand, there have been persistent reports of a split between the main arm of the guerrilla resistance, the Sunni Arab Iraqis, and Zarqawi's group.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/zarqawi-killed-in-baquba-prime.html

[/q]
 
Irvine511 said:




i find that very offensive.

being anti-war is not being pro-insurgent.
Being anti-war is most definitely not pro-insurgent, being pro-war for the Islamic terrorists however is - thinking along the lines of Michael Moore and those who would mistake Al Qaeda in Iraq as a force of national liberation.
 
Last edited:
One less homicidal maniac for this world to worry about! :up:

I bet he's very disappointed right about now, waiting for his 72 virgins to show up.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Being anti-war is most definitely not pro-insurgent, being pro-war for the Islamic terrorists however is - thinking along the lines of Michael Moore and those who would mistake Al Qaeda in Iraq as a force of national liberation.

Thank you Wanderer, that was well said.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Being anti-war is most definitely not pro-insurgent, being pro-war for the Islamic terrorists however is - thinking along the lines of Michael Moore and those who would mistake Al Qaeda in Iraq as a force of national liberation.



i think that's a misrepresentation of Michael Moore.

i also wonder if there aren't lines to be drawn up between the insurgency, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

that said, and it bothers me that i have to actually come out and say this but such is the current climate, i do not see either the insurgency or Al-Qaeda as forces of national liberation.
 
AchtungBono said:
I wonder if any anti-war activists will attend his funeral....

I wonder if people like you will ever understand that being against this war doesn't mean you are pro-terrorist?

Probably not...:|
 
Irvine511 said:

i find that very offensive.

being anti-war is not being pro-insurgent.

I apologize for offending you but not for what I said.

If you're anti-war then that means that you don't want to fight the terrorists (you = general term), and if you don't want to fight the terrorists then that means that you want them to continue doing what they're doing......

How ELSE would you defeat them if you don't fight them??
 
AchtungBono said:


I apologize for offending you but not for what I said.

If you're anti-war then that means that you don't want to fight the terrorists (you = general term), and if you don't want to fight the terrorists then that means that you want them to continue doing what they're doing......

How ELSE would you defeat them if you don't fight them??

BULLSHIT!!!

Many who were against going into Iraq still supported going into Afghanistan.

With your logic if we don't kill all racists we don't want to end racism, if we don't kill those governments commiting human rights issues then we support those infractions on human rights, it's flawed logic. It's bullshit.
 
Zarqawi out of the picture is certainly good for PR and morale, but I don't think it will make much of a difference beyond that. Al Qaeda isn't dumb, I'm sure they had a #2 ready to replace him at a moments notice. That being said, may he join Saddam's sons in whatever they're doing at the moment....:mac:
 
AchtungBono said:

P.S.: This reply is dedicated to Nick Berg and the other innocent victims of Zarqawi's butchery.......

I find the reaction from Nick Berg's father quite interesting. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but still curious.


Michael Berg, father of American businessman Nicholas Berg, whom is it believed al-Zarqawi beheaded in May 2004

"I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed and I feel badly for that.

"I feel doubly badly, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do not ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. It's an endless cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence we will always have violence."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html
 
AchtungBono said:


I apologize for offending you but not for what I said.

If you're anti-war then that means that you don't want to fight the terrorists (you = general term), and if you don't want to fight the terrorists then that means that you want them to continue doing what they're doing......

How ELSE would you defeat them if you don't fight them??



it's not about fighting or not, it's about HOW you fight. there's more to "fighting" terrorism than shooting up some fuckers and especially invading a country that has NOTHING to do with what happened to the US on 9-11.

you're creating a flase dichotomy and putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head.

Bush has made us less safe, not more.
 
wow
i'm reading some pretty fucked up commentary in this thread
what the hell is wrong with some of you??? :slant:

i think a few of you need to take a leaf out of Micheal Bergs book - a man who has closer ties to this situation than any of you can imagine
 
Flags are being lowered to half-mast in Hollywood.

:shame: Sorry, just couldn't help but take a swipe at the "George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist" crowd.
 
INDY500 said:
Flags are being lowered to half-mast in Hollywood.

:shame: Sorry, just couldn't help but take a swipe at the "George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist" crowd.

Well..........I wouldn't go THAT far.......
 
INDY500 said:
Flags are being lowered to half-mast in Hollywood.

:shame: Sorry, just couldn't help but take a swipe at the "George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist" crowd.



and Jesus is going to come back and behead the Senators who didn't vote for the anti-marriage equality amendment.

you have been warned.



(one moronic comment deserves another)
 
digsy said:
wow
i'm reading some pretty fucked up commentary in this thread
what the hell is wrong with some of you??? :slant:

i think a few of you need to take a leaf out of Micheal Bergs book - a man who has closer ties to this situation than any of you can imagine



care to explain what you're talking about?
 
INDY500 said:


Sorry, forgot.
No levity in FYM unless it's directed at Pat Robertson.
My bad.



or HRC. or Ted Kennedy.

it simply wasn't funny, particularly in light of earlier comments in the thread by AchtungBono that i, and others, had stated were particularly offensive.

i'm sure you were joking, but the joke suffers from rather poor timing.
 
Oh, come on. This is political commentary. I can't believe someone took it as personally offensive.

You have often suggested that others look to be offended. Is this not the case here as well?
 
nbcrusader said:
Oh, come on. This is political commentary. I can't believe someone took it as personally offensive.

You have often suggested that others look to be offended. Is this not the case here as well?



go back and read the thread and the specific posts i am referencing. i said, specifically, that i was offended by one particular post that said if you are anti-war than you are pro-insurgent.

and don't take my post (riposte) more seriously than it deserves to be taken.
 
Irvine511 said:
go back and read the thread and the specific posts i am referencing. i said, specifically, that i was offended by one particular post that said if you are anti-war than you are pro-insurgent.

I know you were refering to the one post. Subsequent responses were able to articulate why the statement was not correct.

It was not personal. It was not offensive.
 
nbcrusader said:


I know you were refering to the one post. Subsequent responses were able to articulate why the statement was not correct.

It was not personal. It was not offensive.



i never said it was personal. the original comment remains offensive. invoking Hollywood as mournful of the death of one of the worst people on earth is also offensive, not terribly so, but not a particularly well-timed joke.
 
Back
Top Bottom