Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 220
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #101  
    I thought I would add this to the mix. Notice the dates, then add in the content. Did AQ rat out Zarqawi?

    Source: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htm.../20060607.aspx

    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.

    -snip-

    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."
  2.    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Wrong again my hairy friend. I don’t identify with GHWB nor would I say I have a huge amount of respect for him. We can point blame all we want, as I am inclined to do as well, but the bottom line is that something had to be done about the continuing situation. We could sit by and let Saddam’s crew kill thousands more people, take pop shots at us and, most likely, continue or resume a WMD program, or we can put an end to it.

    One more thing about GHWB: if he indeed went the full mile and toppled Saddam, we’d be in the same place we are now with all of the folks on the Left reciting all of the same rhetoric. Do you disagree?
    its a false arguement -- that was never the choice.

    We never had any intention of going to Bagdad to topple Sadamm.

    Daddy was expecting for the Iraqis to do it.

    The Shiites (and Kurds) with our encouragement, rebelled.

    What he absolutely didn't want -- what he in fact feared -- was for there to be a successful Shiite uprising that would reenforce and align with Iran.

    (oops. )

    That was why he effectively encouraged Sadamm's ruthless suppression. (there would have been no Sadamm had we said to his army: sit tight -- go no where, fly no where.)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #103  
    And more to think about.


    Source: Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...00549C2738.htm)

    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."
  4. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    So what do you call killing the leader of the Iraqi insurgency, who has personally beheaded hostages.....a great failure?

    People like you are the first to complain that Bush hasnt caught or killed bin laden. You would also be one of the first to discount it when he does.
    Zarqawi was the leader of very little. If the US had not killed him, the Sunni faction would would have as soon as the US was out of the country.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    hoovs, you want to glide on by issues like responsibility when it indicts people you identify with and respect.

    The Kurds and the Shiites (in particular) were betrayed by daddy.

    They were slaughtered in the thousands by Sadamm while our troops were ORDERED to sit and watch helplessly.

    Admit and confront this truth.
    Barye, I agree Bush senior should have taken action, I also say President Clinton should have taken action. No Free Pass for 8 years of little to no true action.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #107  
    Zarqawi was the leader of very little. If the US had not killed him, the Sunni faction would would have as soon as the US was out of the country.
    Says who? Where did you get this information from? Please share it. Or is this from personal intelligence that you gathered yourself from inside Iraq?
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Says who? Where did you get this information from? Please share it. Or is this from personal intelligence that you gathered yourself from inside Iraq?
    Maybe this is what he is talking about.

    From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zarqawi

    On April 10, 2006, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military conducted a major propaganda offensive designed to exaggerate Zarqawi's role in the Iraqi insurgency. Gen. Mark Kimmitt says of the propaganda campaign that there "was no attempt to manipulate the press." In an internal briefing, Kimmitt is quoted as stating, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." The main goal of the propaganda campaign seems to have been to exacerbate a rift between insurgent forces in Iraq, but intelligence experts worry that it has actually enhanced Zarqawi's influence.


    Col. Derek Harvey, "who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," warned an Army meeting in 2004 that "Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will -- made him more important than he really is, in some ways." While Pentagon spokespersons state unequivocally that PSYOPs may not be used to influence American citizens, there is little question that the information disseminated through the program has found its way into American media sources. The Post also notes that "One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war." <22>
  8. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    its a false arguement -- that was never the choice.

    We never had any intention of going to Bagdad to topple Sadamm.

    Daddy was expecting for the Iraqis to do it.

    The Shiites (and Kurds) with our encouragement, rebelled.

    What he absolutely didn't want -- what he in fact feared -- was for there to be a successful Shiite uprising that would reenforce and align with Iran.

    (oops. )

    That was why he effectively encouraged Sadamm's ruthless suppression. (there would have been no Sadamm had we said to his army: sit tight -- go no where, fly no where.)
    You neglected most of my argument and latched onto the side point. But since you want to argue side points, the chances of there being an Iraqi-Iranian alliance wasn't as great as people think. The bottom line on that is that Iraqis are Arabs ar heart. They might be Shi'ites, but they're Arab Shi'ites.
  9. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #110  
    Zarqawi was the leader of very little
    He was at a minimum the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the face of the insurgency. He personally beheaded hostages. He was behind the assasination of an Egyptian Ambassader in Iraq. He was behind the assasination of an American Ambassader in Jordan. He was behind the sucide bombing of a wedding in Jordan that killed many people. He was behind an attempted chemical attack in Jordan that could have killed thousands. He was behind the assasination of the one time president of Iraqs new goverment. Not to mention the hundreds of US soldiers, judges, policemen, whos deaths that he had claimed as his own, and ofcourse non sunni Iraqis who he as recent as last week he called for their deaths.

    Someone who does all of this, in more than one country, is the leader of more than "a very little" amount of people.
  10. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    He personally beheaded hostages.
    This was reason enough for me to want him dead.

    The civil war in Iraq has grown to qwarf Al Q in Iraq.
  11. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Says who? Where did you get this information from? Please share it. Or is this from personal intelligence that you gathered yourself from inside Iraq?
    This is from gathering as much information as possible and making conclusions based on that information. You should try it.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #113  
    Whats important is that his was 'the' face of the insurgency to everyone on all sides, regardless of how many different insurgent groups there may be, how big of a leader he actually was, or whether or not his image was inflated via psyop efforts.

    Without googling, name one other insurgent in Iraq.
  13. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    This was reason enough for me to want him dead.

    The civil war in Iraq has grown to qwarf Al Q in Iraq.
    Calling this a Civil War is a bit overly dramatic. The insurgents undoubtedly want it to be; some on the Left may want it to be, but that doesn't make it one.
  14. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #115  
    This is from gathering as much information as possible and making conclusions based on that information
    This is so funny.
    Please share this information. I would love to see any information that shows a man responsible for the death of hundreds (if not thousands) of people in multiple countries being the leader of a very few people.
    Last edited by TomUps; 06/08/2006 at 03:54 PM.
  15.    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Barye, I agree Bush senior should have taken action, I also say President Clinton should have taken action. No Free Pass for 8 years of little to no true action.
    your analogy is flawed.

    Daddy made a deal with Sadamm that allowed Sadamm to crush his rebelling Kurds and Shiites. Daddy had absolute control at that time, and could have ordered Sadamm to dance naked in a pig sty if he had the mind to.

    Had daddy allowed the Shiites and Kurds to rebel while grounding Sadamm's Republican Guard there would have been no Sadamm. Daddy made the decision to have Sadamm do that "wet" work.

    Clinton simply pursued daddy's existing status quo of the no fly zones...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Calling this a Civil War is a bit overly dramatic. The insurgents undoubtedly want it to be; some on the Left may want it to be, but that doesn't make it one.
    Civil war it may or may not be, but there is definitely factions of one country fighting each other, they definitely control sections of land. If it is not civil war yet we are definitely getting closer.

    Here is the definition of "civil war" as stated by GlobalSecurity.org


    Source: GlobalSecurity.org

    civil war: A war between factions of the same country; there are
    five criteria for international recognition of this status: the
    contestants must control territory, have a functioning government,
    enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed
    forces, and engage in major military operations.
    Some others denote Civil war as simply two or factions of one nation fighting one another.

    Source: Wikipedia.org
    A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 04:04 PM.
  17. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Calling this a Civil War is a bit overly dramatic. The insurgents undoubtedly want it to be; some on the Left may want it to be, but that doesn't make it one.
    I don't want it to be. I would love to see these factions cooperate either together or separately and share in their oil wealth and continue to spend it on the welfare of the people as before the Iran/Iraq war.

    In reality, I don't see that happening in the short term.
  18.    #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You neglected most of my argument and latched onto the side point. But since you want to argue side points, the chances of there being an Iraqi-Iranian alliance wasn't as great as people think. The bottom line on that is that Iraqis are Arabs ar heart. They might be Shi'ites, but they're Arab Shi'ites.
    Iranians think of themselves as Persians -- but they are pan-islamic Persians who think of themselves as destined to again lead a great islamic empire.

    Iraqi Shiites are absolutely in bed with the Iranians NOW. If you can't see that I'm dissapointed that you're so naive.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Whats important is that his was 'the' face of the insurgency to everyone on all sides, regardless of how many different insurgent groups there may be, how big of a leader he actually was, or whether or not his image was inflated via psyop efforts.

    Without googling, name one other insurgent in Iraq.
    Um no. Zarqawi was not the face of the insurgency to everyone on all sides. If you would like to get a flavor for this please view:
    Frontline: Insurgency

    edited to add: (what is this thing you speak of; "without google"?)
    Last edited by daThomas; 06/08/2006 at 04:12 PM.

Posting Permissions