Al-Zarqawi Dead (Non-US Polirical)

[R. Richard]

Al-Zarqawi Dead (Non-US Political)

The following story tells what happened. IMNTHO it omits the really important part of the story. The US killed al-Zarqawi. The US did not locate al-Zarqawi. The US was not capable of locating al-Zarqawi. The only people who were capable of locating al-Zarqawi were either members of his own organization or Iraqi Sunni Muslims. At least one person from his own organization or from among Iraqi Sunni Muslims decided to tell the US where al-Zarqawi could be found and when.

The tide is turning! Even Iraqi Muslims are no longer willing to put up with the mass murder of their own. The idea that all the murders are the fault of the US is failing to sell. The remaining heads of terrorist organizations in Iraq now know that they are not safe. Things are getting better! Comment?

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid
By PATRICK QUINN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who waged a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and beheadings of hostages, has been killed in a precision airstrike, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday. It was a long-sought victory in the war in Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi and seven aides, including spiritual adviser Sheik Abdul Rahman, were killed Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, officials said.

"Al-Zarqawi was eliminated," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

At the White House, President Bush hailed the killing as "a severe blow to al-Qaida and it is a significant victory in the war on terror."

But he cautioned: "We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people."

Al-Qaida in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi's death and vowed to continue its "holy war," according to a statement posted on a Web site.

"We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme."

Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the hunt for al-Zarqawi began two weeks ago, and his body was identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.

Casey said an American airstrike targeted "an identified, isolated safe house."

 

[zeb1094]

And not 10 minutes after the news was announced Air America News started reporting how innocent civilians were killed in the air strike.

I guess they want to take over the position of Al Jezira in puting the US down for what we do to help the Iraqies.

 

[Pure]

a slight question--first:

is there any evidence Zarqawi is dead?

----
as to the idea that some sunni betrayed the location, yes, i can agree, as with the disclosure of Saddam's hiding place.

RR: The US was not capable of locating al-Zarqawi. The only people who were capable of locating al-Zarqawi were either members of his own organization or Iraqi Sunni Muslims. At least one person from his own organization or from among Iraqi Sunni Muslims decided to tell the US where al-Zarqawi could be found and when.

The tide is turning! Even Iraqi Muslims are no longer willing to put up with the mass murder of their own. The idea that all the murders are the fault of the US is failing to sell. The remaining heads of terrorist organizations in Iraq now know that they are not safe. Things are getting better! Comment?

As you say, 'at least one' member of the Zarqawi group--or maybe one neighbor-- 'squealed.'

It's hard to asses the significance of this, after all, the ratting out of Saddam did not indicate the end of Saddamists' actions.

----
Lastly, RR, what does the mode of killing tell you. If the Iraqi police are so damn good, and are helped by the sunnis, why didn't the Iraqi cops or Iraqi army just go and grab the guy?

Why call in the US with a 500 lb bomb? (Not a usual 'arrest' mode!)

Lastly, what does this dependence tell you about the future? THE US continues to bomb suspected terrorist houses whenever the Iraqi police 'call in a strike'? Do we know if the Iraqi police are capable of a 'shoot out' with the bad guys?

As far as 'rats' go, RR. Would you bet there are more than a couple in the new gov, and new police and army? I mean 'rats' working for the various insurgents.

 

[R. Richard]

And not 10 minutes after the news was announced Air America News started reporting how innocent civilians were killed in the air strike.

You have to wonder how innocent the civilians were if they were in a house harboring the best known terrorist in Iraq.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Death and Vengeance

I posted a link to a short story by Dan Simmons not too long ago, which many people hated. Simmons is a nutjob and a bigot, but he is still a good writer and his story made me stop for just a second and made me think. This article is pretty much the opposite sentiment of the Simmons story and again it made me stop and think.

Of course what Simmons wrote was fictional, what Berg has gone through is all too real. I still don't quite agree with everything Berg says, but my sympathies lie much more with him and his attitude than the other direction.

Beheaded man's father: Revenge breeds revenge
Michael Berg talks about the death of his son and al-Zarqawi

Thursday, June 8, 2006; Posted: 11:59 a.m. EDT (15:59 GMT)

A terror-linked Web site showed Nicholas Berg being beheaded, likely by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.


(CNN) -- The U.S.-led coalition's No. 1 wanted man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- who conducted a campaign of insurgency bombings, beheadings and killings of Americans and Iraqi civilians -- was killed in a U.S. airstrike.

A gruesome video was posted on Islamic Web sites in May, 2004, depicting a man believed to be al-Zarqawi beheading Nicholas Berg, an American businessman who was working in Iraq.

CNN anchor Soledad O"Brien talks to Nicholas Berg's father, Michael Berg, by phone from Wilmington, Delaware, for his reaction to the news.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.

MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is 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 bad for that. (Watch video of the two bombs falling on al-Zarqawi -- 2:00)

I feel doubly bad, 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 want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.

BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?

BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?

O'BRIEN: There have been family members who have weighed in, victims, who've said that they don't think he's a martyr in heaven, that they think, frankly, he went straight to hell ...

You know, you talked about the fact that he's become a political figure. Are you concerned that he becomes a martyr and a hero and, in fact, invigorates the insurgency in Iraq?

BERG: Of course. When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously.

I've been shot at. I've been showed horrible pictures. I've been called all kinds of names and threatened by all kinds of people, and yet I feel that I have nothing left to lose, so I do those things.

Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then If I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?

That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?

O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading, which would say at some point, Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK -- that they'll be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of he was turned in, for example, we believe by his own No. 2, No. 3 leadership in his ranks.

And, that's actually them saying we do not want this kind of violence in our country. Experts whom we've spoken to this morning have said this is a critical moment where Iraqis need to figure out which direction the country is going to go. That would be an alternate reading to the scenario you're pointing to. (Watch how Iraqi leaders cheered after learning about al-Zarqawi's death -- 4:31)

BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...

BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.

BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.

I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.

Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.

Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.

Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

O'BRIEN: Michael Berg is the father of Nicholas Berg, the young man, the young businessman who was beheaded so brutally in Iraq back in May of 2004.

 

[zeb1094]

is there any evidence Zarqawi is dead?

----
as to the idea that some sunni betrayed the location, yes, i can agree, as with the disclosure of Saddam's hiding place.

RR: The US was not capable of locating al-Zarqawi. The only people who were capable of locating al-Zarqawi were either members of his own organization or Iraqi Sunni Muslims. At least one person from his own organization or from among Iraqi Sunni Muslims decided to tell the US where al-Zarqawi could be found and when.

The tide is turning! Even Iraqi Muslims are no longer willing to put up with the mass murder of their own. The idea that all the murders are the fault of the US is failing to sell. The remaining heads of terrorist organizations in Iraq now know that they are not safe. Things are getting better! Comment?

As you say, 'at least one' member of the Zarqawi group--or maybe one neighbor-- 'squealed.'

It's hard to asses the significance of this, after all, the ratting out of Saddam did not indicate the end of Saddamists' actions.

----
Lastly, RR, what does the mode of killing tell you. If the Iraqi police are so damn good, and are helped by the sunnis, why didn't the Iraqi cops or Iraqi army just go and grab the guy?

Why call in the US with a 500 lb bomb? (Not a usual 'arrest' mode!)

Lastly, what does this dependence tell you about the future? THE US continues to bomb suspected terrorist houses whenever the Iraqi police 'call in a strike'? Do we know if the Iraqi police are capable of a 'shoot out' with the bad guys?

As far as 'rats' go, RR. Would you bet there are more than a couple in the new gov, and new police and army? I mean 'rats' working for the various insurgents.

There is a picture of his dead worthless body on the The Drudge Report!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You have to wonder how innocent the civilians were if they were in a house harboring the best known terrorist in Iraq.

If you were being hunted as a terrorist, where would you hide? Terrorists R Us? An old military compound? Uh, no. You'd find somewhere in the middle of a bunch of "innocent civilians" that you know the West would hesitate bombing for fear of collateral damage... we care more about their dead than they do, most likely... not because we really care about the people, but because we care about our image.

 

[R. Richard]

is there any evidence Zarqawi is dead?
Yes, there are pictures of his dead body post various places in the 'Net.

[Lastly, RR, what does the mode of killing tell you. If the Iraqi police are so damn good, and are helped by the sunnis, why didn't the Iraqi cops or Iraqi army just go and grab the guy?

Why call in the US with a 500 lb bomb? (Not a usual 'arrest' mode!)

Lastly, what does this dependence tell you about the future? THE US continues to bomb suspected terrorist houses whenever the Iraqi police 'call in a strike'? Do we know if the Iraqi police are capable of a 'shoot out' with the bad guys?

As far as 'rats' go, RR. Would you bet there are more than a couple in the new gov, and new police and army? I mean 'rats' working for the various insurgents.

You have answered your own question. If the US attempts to go through the Iraqi scumbags, Zarqawi will know almost instantly. It is known that there are moles [your 'rats'] working with the Iraqi scumbags. Thus, the US strike was done with minimal information revealed to the scumbags. The US used an airstrike to wipe out Zarqawi and then the Iraqi scumbags searched the ruins of the house.

Do we know if the Iraqi police are capable of a 'shoot out' with the bad guys?

I hate to have to be the one to tell you, Pure, but at least some of the Iraqi scumbags ARE the bad guys. If there was to be a "shoot out," it would be after Zarqawi had left the house. Zarqawi would have left the house after one or more of the scumbags tipped him off.

 

[Pure]

Hi RR

yes, I think i agree with your last sentences. the Iraqi police--who are apparently riven with death squads etc. could not be trusted with such a raid. After all, 200 police cannot be expected to triumph over ten dedicated occupants of the house in question.

YES, judging by the NYTIMES story, there IS some evidence of it being Zarqawi. I concede it probably is.

Well, here's the 'dead or alive' terrorist leader Bush has been talking about for some time-- now that he realizest the 'dead or alive' talk was rather foolish. The impact remains to be seen. Personally I think the "Al Qaeda" (foreigners) role in Iraq was a minority of the 'insurgents'. There are probably native grown Al Qaeda members now.

IT's unfortunate that this news is going to be misunderstood by Americans as showing that America is safer from terrorists, that Al qaeda was linked to Iraq before the invasion (because it's now there!).

 

[rgraham666]

What makes you think killing one man would make any difference? There will just be someone else who steps up to the plate.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the insurgency was not fighting for al-Zarqawi. They're fighting to kick the U.S. out of Iraq.

Various factions might also be fighting for their idea of what Iraq should be like after the U.S. is gone, but the central idea is that the U.S. should be driven out.

For the insurgency to end the U.S. has to change the Iraqi's minds about this, unlikely, or leave.

 

[rgraham666]

Oh, and Pure?

This war was never about terrorism, or oil, or strategic advantage, or protecting the U.S. from an aggressor.

Its purpose was to give a message to the rest of the world, "We're not playing by the rules anymore."

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Sorry, but I think everyone is getting a bit hysterical.

This man personally beheaded innocent civilians, encouraged innocent Iraqis to lose their lives blowing up their compatriot schoolchildren , and was, beyond everything, a Jordanian. This was not his conflict.

He is dead, sorry 'terminated', the fingerprint evidence is apparently conclusive.

Why should we worry about a man that Iraqi sunnis gave up to the authorities because they thought he was too extreme. He was, without doubt, a bad man.

All of us who questioned the invasion can rest content that a particularly evil terrorist cannot kill any more innocent people.

 

[Pure]

Oh, and Pure?

This war was never about terrorism, or oil, or strategic advantage, or protecting the U.S. from an aggressor.

Its purpose was to give a message to the rest of the world, "We're not playing by the rules anymore."

i think i'd agree. the neo con agenda included hitting iraq for some time. the basic principle of neocon foreign policy is that the US, as unchallenged power, can and should go about the world doing whatever it considers necessary to bring about outcomes that are of interest.

if you think about it, this is the macro (world) version of Bush's own micro (US) philosophy as US Pres: having great power, the point is to use it as considered beneficial and desirable, with as few constraints as possible. ignore any existing, proposed or attempted restraints such as laws.

 

[3 Legged Donkey]

Sorry, but I think everyone is getting a bit hysterical.

This man personally beheaded innocent civilians, encouraged innocent Iraqis to lose their lives blowing up their compatriot schoolchildren , and was, beyond everything, a Jordanian. This was not his conflict.

He is dead, sorry 'terminated', the fingerprint evidence is apparently conclusive.

Why should we worry about a man that Iraqi sunnis gave up to the authorities because they thought he was too extreme. He was, without doubt, a bad man.

All of us who questioned the invasion can rest content that a particularly evil terrorist cannot kill any more innocent people.

Well said.

The world is a far better place without "men" like him in it, whatever reasoning, political spin, or any other kind of clap-trap people want to spout about it.

 

[R. Richard]

What makes you think killing one man would make any difference? There will just be someone else who steps up to the plate.

Yes, there will be a replacement for Zarqawi. However, a message has been sent to the replacement. "You can no longer trust to the silence of Iraqis as you slaughter many of their own."

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the insurgency was not fighting for al-Zarqawi. They're fighting to kick the U.S. out of Iraq.

I don't suppose that it has occurred to you, ior to the insurgents, that, if they were not killing dozens of Irqaqis a day, the US would probably be out if Iraq by now.

Various factions might also be fighting for their idea of what Iraq should be like after the U.S. is gone, but the central idea is that the U.S. should be driven out.

The factions are fighting for political power, plain and simple. The Sunnis do not want the US gone, because the vastly more numerous Shias would likely kill them now that Saddam is gone.

For the insurgency to end the U.S. has to change the Iraqi's minds about this, unlikely, or leave.

Why does the US have to change the Iraqi's minds? Isn't this realy a job for the UN? Oh wait! The UN turned tail and ran after they were attacked by terrorists.

 

[wildwildbest]

If you were being hunted as a terrorist, where would you hide? Terrorists R Us? An old military compound? Uh, no. You'd find somewhere in the middle of a bunch of "innocent civilians" that you know the West would hesitate bombing for fear of collateral damage... we care more about their dead than they do, most likely... not because we really care about the people, but because we care about our image.

If I were a hunted terrorist I'd hide in France--one of the favorite countries of ruthless dictators accused of genocide.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Forgive me here.

Al-Zarqawi is eliminated. Hurrah. That is good. His tactics were hideous, he was a memeber of Al-Queda, the group we should actually be going after. Personally, he was a monster. There isn't many tears to shed over this one. It's all good.


That I get. What I don't get is the applause, the fanfare. The whole "this justifies the whole war" dance or the "it's all turning around now". When we captured Saddam we said the same thing. When we killed the other leaders who dared oppose us, we said the same thing. It's delusional bullshit.

The simple fact is that Iraqis aren't going to stop. When the latest atrocity against Iraq was all abuzz in the American press, Al-Jazeera and the Iraqi papers didn't even report it. It was old hat. We have fucked over the Iraqis so bad, killed and tortured so many innocents that death of genuine innocents fails to even be newsworthy anymore. Like in Afghanistan, there are very little left in Iraq that believe we have their best interests in heart and similarily huge amounts of people who have very personal reasons to sacrifice it all to violently oppose their invaders and oppressors.

I suppose we imagine it like in World War II. All we had to do then was scare Hitler and the Emperor and the rest fell down. We learned the wrong lessons from World War II. We imagined that's how every war would go. A decisive strike into the country, the head collapses, and the body follows and everyone knows they were on the right side. It was a defensive war and it made sense. So we expect every war to mimic it. To be it so that we can feel heroic again.

We should have been watching France. France was conquered, its head collapsed as tanks rolled into its major city. Its people formed a resistance, fucked over anything they could, fucked over things in the country that conquered it. Its people refused to be taken.

We do not imagine, foolishly, that an insurrection, a resistance against a conqueror is born out of the people and that one head will not topple it, because what these bombers are doing is avenging lost loves, tortured children, and standing up for what has always been their country. If Iraq bombed and invaded America, would you not grab a rifle and begin sniping soldiers and policemen?



Eh, back to the point, I am amazed by our capacity for ignorance. We are so married to the idea that war, by itself with no additives like honour or defense or anthing that makes it matter, is America. That is the war must be going well or America will fall. You must support any war no matter how atrocious, illegal, or filled with Geneva Convention violations, or you do not support America. So we bullshit ourselves that the war must be winnable (we can't allow an unwnable war. Vietnam could have been won if we only sent every non-Republican male to the front lines damnitt), that it should be fought at all, and that finally after five years destroying ONE of the many many monsters we created in our jihad against Islam, destroying ONE of the many things that make it a worse threat than it has ever been means that the tide has turned or that we should applaud the war for all the good it's doing the Iraqi people. Maybe living in that lie makes some happy, but I'm far too tired out by irony to play that game.




Oh wait, what am I talking about? This is AMERICA! So sorry, I shall adopt proper decorum at once. Blah blah, liberals=Al Queda. Wars are always winnable, it's only people who hate America who keep us from seizing that victory. If we only step into jackboots and goosestep in unity then ve can rule ze world as the supermen master race that we are. As long as we kill all the darkies and fags first. Fucking freedom haters.

 

[R. Richard]

Why did they do it, other than to eliminate a very dangerous terrorist? Here's why.

From the news:
[Caldwell said important information was found at the location that led to 17 simultaneous raids later that night in Baghdad and its outskirts that uncovered a "treasure trove" of information.]

 

[Pure]

somewhat along the lines of lucifer, a few analysts, in trying to puzzle out possible effects have considered this one.

AZ was a foreigner who apparently did NOT really take Iraqis up to leadership positions, excerpt perhaps as a cover.

AZ's bloody methods--beheadings-- gave the sunni cause a black eye.

AZ is responsible for the deaths of lots of sunnis-- maybe more than shi'as.

THEREFORE, if his replacement is an Iraqi with a bit more sense of PR--a large part of this war-- and a bit more likeable to sunnis, that person will be a more effective anti-American or 'insurgent' leader.

 

[Pure]

//We should have been watching France. France was conquered, its head collapsed as tanks rolled into its major city. Its people formed a resistance, fucked over anything they could, fucked over things in the country that conquered it. Its people refused to be taken.//

As documented in the movie, "The Sorrow and the Pity," there was a small, heroic minority in France, then, one supported by some sector of the populace.

The majority accomodated, and just tried to keep on living; that's what humans are like.

An even larger minority than the first, including some leaders, actively collaborated with the German occupiers.
---

I agree there is a DISanalogy with WWII, and certainly Saddam was not a Hitler bent on world domination.

I agree the wrong lessons have been learned.

As to:
All we had to do then was scare Hitler and the Emperor and the rest fell down. We learned the wrong lessons from World War II. We imagined that's how every war would go. A decisive strike into the country, the head collapses, and the body follows and everyone knows they were on the right side.

I'm not sure if Luc is presenting this as his theory or other people's. But in both the German and Japanese cases, there was *massive* destruction of the country and of the army, *before* the 'head' ever fell. Indeed all of Europe, IIRC, was liberated when the Allies finally cornered Hitler in his bunker.

Germany and to a lesser extent Japan, had massive occupying forces. AND the populace essentially gave up the fight. So the Americans did not have difficulty setting up the two new government, as it's having now.

The Iraqi gov't socalled reminds me of some of the S. Vietnamese govs of the 60s. An artificial creation.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The situation in Iraq never was caused by Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda stepped in and exploited the chaos following the American invasion and the fall of Saddam because this administration gave absolutely no thought to how they would keep the country together once the dictator was gone. You can argue whether the invasion was wrong or right, but that one fact is indisputable. And inexcusable. (Unless you believe like I do that one of the primary reasons we invaded was to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East

What's going on there now is not the US vs. Al Qaeda or even Sunni vs. Shiite. It's anarchy, pure and simple--political and religious killing, criminal murder and extortion, gang warfare, kidnapping, revenge, power grabs, robberies disguised to look like something else, old family feuds being settled--anarchy. In that environment, the US Army is just another faction trying to impose its will, as was Al Qaeda.

Al-Zarqawi was a bad man and it's good he's dead, but I think his death will have about as much effect on violence in Iraq as the capture of Saddam did, which is nil.

 

[R. Richard]

The situation in Iraq never was caused by Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda stepped in and exploited the chaos following the American invasion and the fall of Saddam because this administration gave absolutely no thought to how they would keep the country together once the dictator was gone. You can argue whether the invasion was wrong or right, but that one fact is indisputable. And inexcusable. (Unless you believe like I do that one of the primary reasons we invaded was to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East

Dr_M: If you really believe that the US wants to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle-East, please review the US invasion of Grenada. As to the stupidity of the planless administration, I could not agree more. I tried to convince the powers that be that they had to at least write a constitution for Iraq. However, I do not have it piled higher and deeper and my advice was ignored. I also furnished them a painless interrogation method, but instead they chose Abu Gharib.

What's going on there now is not the US vs. Al Qaeda or even Sunni vs. Shiite. It's anarchy, pure and simple--political and religious killing, criminal murder and extortion, gang warfare, kidnapping, revenge, power grabs, robberies disguised to look like something else, old family feuds being settled--anarchy. In that environment, the US Army is just another faction trying to impose its will, as was Al Qaeda.

I would disagree, in that the US Army has the power to impose its will and the other factions really do not. What the US administration lacks is the will to impose its will.

Al-Zarqawi was a bad man and it's good he's dead, but I think his death will have about as much effect on violence in Iraq as the capture of Saddam did, which is nil.

I must disagree. According to the propaganda, Zarqawi was betrayed by one of his own. I suspect that Zarqawi was betrayed by someone of power, but someone wwho was not, per se, an al Qaida guy. Once people start to betray al Qaida, al Qaida can't exist in Iraq, the US Army will wipe them out. Similarly, the other criminal gangs can't exist for the same reason. The problem is getting the Iraqis to betray the criminals. It is strictly a matter of psychology, as the betrayal can be done by cell phone and the betrayer can't be identified by a visit to the police or army.

Once the terrorist start to get betrayed, the terrorists will not last long. After they get rid of the terrorists, there will be war between the Shia militias. There would be war between the Shias and the Arab Sunnis. but the Arab Sunnis really can't defend themselves.

Of course, the capture of Saddam was really a non-event.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, let's meet here in what? about 4 months? And we'll see if there's peace in Iraq and the Army pulling out or whether it's still anarchy and the world's #1 Al Qaeda training school.

My predictsion: still anarchy, US Army still there. The administratioin will announce some new corner has been turned and Iraq is on its way to democracy.

Four months after that-- same deal.

Honest to God, I wish those poor people could have some peace over there. My neighbors are Iraqi and their grandfather was killed by an American bomb shortly after the invasion. Now some other relative--a little girl--was killed by a car bomb on the street. No one knows who set it, but I guess they feel it was some gangster-merchant eliminating his competitiion and blaming it on terrorists. From what they say, it's just a fucking free-for-all over there

 

[zeb1094]

It would appear that he was alive when the American troops arrived at the scene. He didn't survive long but was conscious and alert.

So how long before someone accuses the US Military of killing him after they arrived?

 

[R. Richard]

It would appear that he was alive when the American troops arrived at the scene. He didn't survive long but was conscious and alert.

So how long before someone accuses the US Military of killing him after they arrived?

I don't think so. The US military would have obviously wanted to question him. More than anyone else, the US military wanted Zarqawi alive.