Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraqi Claims U.S. GIs Beat Wounded Man (Zarqawi)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:01 AM
Original message
Iraqi Claims U.S. GIs Beat Wounded Man (Zarqawi)
June 10, 2006, 6:15 AM EDT

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- 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-Qaida 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.

The U.S. military made no mention of any physical contact between U.S. troops and al-Zarqawi other than an attempt to provide him with medical attention.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-al-zarqawi,0,3015170.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlinesq


Here's my theory: The US found Zarqawi still alive and he died/killed in custody. Then they called in the fighter jets to bomb his house after he was dead to cover up their deeds. In the process they killed 6(?) civilians including at least 1 child. If this is true then all 7 deaths should be considered murder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. I wish I could say I was shocked
But I can't. Three years of this shit every day means one finds it hard to be outraged any more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. The military leadership has unfailingly reflected the
questionable morals and ethics of the b*** administration.

No high point in this idiotic war has escaped their insidious spin and lying theatrics, so how can we expect anything different from them now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. We are seeing complete failure of military discipline
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 07:01 AM by DoYouEverWonder
and Rummie and Bush are totally responsible. As a matter of fact, they have done this deliberately.

BTW: Welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Less Iraqis to divvy up the resources..... flowers and candies no
more methinks.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
97. When we stopped the draft and went to an
"all volunteer" army we changed from an ethical national army to an army of mercenaries with no morals or guilt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. a pregnant woman was also killed
I agree with your theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
63. According to this research (and excellent article):
in The Atlantic, by Mary Anne Weaver, researching in Zarqa, Jordan:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200607/zarqawi?ca=9hloQUJamUfhaPsPg%2B9E5USZvqSqBDKyXpAE9U9Gsng%3D

<snip>

Until his death, al-Zarqawi kept a home on a quiet lane in Zarqa. It was indistinguishable from its neighborsa two-story white stucco building surrounded by a whitewashed wall. The house was empty, a neighbor told us; al-Zarqawis sisters, who still live in Zarqa, would come by to look after it. At one point I glanced up at a window, which was slightly ajar. Someone abruptly slammed it shut.

I learned that the first of al-Zarqawis two wives had lived in the house until recently. She was his cousin, whom he had married when he was twenty-two. They had four children, two boys and two girls. But not long before my visit, al-Zarqawi had sent an unknown man to drive them across the border to be with him in Iraq. His second wife, a Jordanian-Palestinian whom he had married in Afghanistan, and with whom he has a son, was reported to be with him in Iraq as well.

/a lot more info at the source...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wizdum Donating Member (531 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
99. Don't tell the evangelical christians or dumbya will be toast!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brokensymmetry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Pieces of the truth keep coming out.
I suspect you're exactly right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. my theory on all this : Iran turned in Z against nuclear "deal"
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 06:50 AM by tocqueville
1) Zarquawi hated and killed mostly shiites and branded Iran as apostates
2) Iran turned in Zarquawi against some favors - notice the blatant change in the US position towards Iran last week
3) Zarquawi's house was attacked by helicopters and spec forces but turned to Iraquis who extracted information out of him until he died (hence the "treasure" of information found) - contradicted by a 1 ton bombing of computers... etc...
4) a F15 came and bombed the house
5) 8 hours after the news were released

tinfoil anybody or....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yes, all indications are that the Iran Invasion
is off. (Gold went down $100 in about a week, I think that's a big indicator)


Bush is in big trouble and he needed a major victory. He would sell his soul to any devil to get out of trouble.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. If so, that's the best move Bush has ever made
We get rid of a guy who was thought to have killed Iraqis, UN staff, Americans - he appeared willing to kill just about anybody. AND we don't have an attack on Iran. That would be just about the perfect deal.

However, I doubt the Iranians were in a position to turn in Zarqawi - since he was so anti-Shiite, he'd stay well away from the areas where they have influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. He was turned in by local Shia villagers after a Zarqawi massacre.
See my post below. Read the article in the Guardian - a very different picture than that painted by the NYT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. There's a bit of difference between Shia villagers
and the Iranian government (not mentioned at all in the Guardian article, by the way). Well, yes, Shia villagers probably would report him, seeing as he hates their guts. But the Guardian article just says "local residents" - it doesn't specify their denomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #27
82. More on Zarqawi's death, Iraqi Shi'a, and Iran
Edited on Sun Jun-11-06 07:39 AM by leveymg
AP World News
Iran Says It's Happy al-Zarqawi Is Dead
By Associated Press
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iran-zarqawi,0,5597531.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
June 11, 2006, 6:31 AM EDT


TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran, whose relations with Iraq have warmed since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, said Sunday it was pleased about the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"It is natural that we, like the Iraqi people, are happy from this occurrence," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

Iran, a majority Shiite Muslim country, has close ties to the Shiite parties that now dominate Iraq's government.


SNIP

*****

"Baqubah is dangerous not because of Zarqawi but because it is a mixed Sunni-Shiite and Kurdish area . . ." -- Juan Cole, http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/zarqawi-killed-in-baquba-prime.html

****

A follow-up NYT article reported that locals living in the area where Zarqawi died, which is evenly split Shi'a and Sunni population, had provided the original tip that led the U.S. to him. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html

(T)he raid that killed the Al Qaeda leader had taken place in an area known as Hibhib in Diyala province, which stretches north and east of Baghdad to the Iranian border. The area, 55 miles north of Baghdad, has drawn intensified American military activity in recent weeks in response to a new wave of sectarian killings, including one on Sunday in which Sunni Arab gunmen pulled 20 people, including 7 high school students, off minibuses near Baquba, and killed them.

SNIP

The BBC footage showed Iraqi villagers clambering over the rubble, with no sign of American or Iraqi troops. The villagers pulled an array of belongings from the 10-foot-high pile of cinder blocks, twisted concrete pillars and steel reinforcing words, and laid them out on the bare earth beside the obliterated building. Cooking utensils, torn carpets and a child's green T-shirt were visible, as was the wreck of a white, Japanese-made pickup truck.

A CNN broadcast showed youths picking up a child's sandal and a stuffed toy after the airstrikes, which took place in a neighborhood of about 50 buildings, all in close proximity.

SNIP

Mr. Maliki said the attack that killed Mr. Zarqawi had resulted from a tip that came from Iraqi civilians in the area, which lies in a province, Diyala, that has an evenly balanced population of Shiite and Sunni Arabs, as well as Kurds.


*****

Zarqawi was reported to have been railing against Iran and Shi'a in a two-hour long taped broadcast released just five days before he was killed. His death came as the governing coalition under Shi's Prime Minister Nouri al-Zarqawi was at an impasse, threatening to bring down the U.S. annointed regime. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw114932448113B262

SNIP

Al-Zarqawi's Sunni insurgent followers have carried out some of the deadliest suicide bombings in Iraq's conflict and have frequently targeted Shi'a civilians and mosques in an attempt to spark civil war. In his statements, the Jordanian-born militant often vilifies Shi'as as infidels. But the tape posted Friday was an unprecedented screed that chronicled what al-Zarqawi said was a Shi'a campaign throughout history to destroy Islam and help foreign invaders of Muslim lands.

"Sunnis, wake up, pay attention and prepare to confront the poisons of the Shi'a snakes," al-Zarqawi said. "Forget about those advocating the end of sectarianism and calling for national unity." He pointed to two Shi'a militias with links to parties in the Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government, accused by Sunnis in Iraq of running death squads in a recent wave of sectarian violence. "They kill men and arrest women, put them in prison and rape them and steal everything from the houses of the Sunnis," he said.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi expressed "a futile brutality, depraved mentally and morally."

SNIP

Al-Maliki has put together a government of Shi'a, Sunnis and Kurds that US and Iraqi officials hope will be able to ease spiralling sectarian violence in the country. But al-Maliki has struggled to get the parties to agree on key security posts that would lead any effort to bring stability - the interior and defence ministries. He said on Thursday he intends to announce names for the posts even without an agreement between his government partners in an attempt to force a resolution to the continuing differences.

Al-Zarqawi appeared to be aiming at a wider audience, seeking to rally Sunni radicals by tapping into mistrust of Shi'a and non-Arab Shi'a Iran. He denounced Shiites across the Mideast, saying they were "the same as Jews, with secret meetings" and loyalty to a "mother country" - Israel for the Jews, Iran for the Shi'as. He called the Lebanese Shi'a group Hezbollah the "enemy of Sunnis" and accused it of working to protect Israel from Lebanon-based Palestinian guerrillas. Hezbollah gained widespread popularity among both Sunnis and Shi'as for its fight against Israel. But its support at home has waned amid resentment by anti-Syrian Lebanese for its alliance with Damascus and Tehran. The head of south Lebanon's Shi'a religious scholars, Sheik Afif al-Naboulsi, said the militant leader was seeking to "incite sectarian sentiments" and "name himself the leader of the Sunnis."

The conflict in Iraq has reopened the long dormant fault lines between the two communities across the Arab world, where Sunnis form the vast majority. Sunni-led governments have shown increasing fear of restiveness among their Shi'as populations. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak enraged Shiites earlier this year when he said they were more loyal to Iran than their own countries, and Jordan's King Abdullah has warned of a "Shiite crescent" of power. It was al-Zarqawi's first message since an April 29 videotape that seemed aimed at creating a hero's image of himself in the eyes of extremists after criticism over Muslim civilian deaths in some of his attacks -particularly hotel bombings in the Jordanian capital that killed 63 people.


****

By far the best background piece on Zarqawi that I've seen is this one from last year in TomDispatch, Tomgram: Dahr Jamail on the Zarqawi Phenomenon, http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=4481 . It basically concludes that very little of what we've been told about Zarqawi is based in hard facts, and that he's been elevated into a sort of all-purpose boogeyman by the U.S. military and the MSM, and linked by same with every bad guy and rogue regime in the region from Osama bin Laden to Syria to Iran:

Right now, when you try to track down Zarqawi, a man with a $25 million American bounty on his head, or simply try to track him back to the beginnings of his life's journey, whether you look for him in the tunnels of Tora Bora, the ruined city of Fallujah, the Syrian borderlands, or Ramadi, you're likely to run up against a kind of eerie blankness. Whatever the real Zarqawi may or may not be capable of doing today in Iraq or elsewhere, he is dwarfed by the Zarqawi of legend. He may be the Bush administration's Terrorist of Terrorists (now that Osama Bin-Laden has been dropped into the void), the Iraqi insurgency's unwelcome guest, the fantasy figure in some Jihadi dreamscape, or all of the above. Whatever the case, Zarqawi the man has disappeared into an epic tale that may or may not be of his own partial creation. Even dead, he is unlikely to die; even alive, he is unlikely to be able to live up to anybody's Zarqawi myth.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
31. The problem is that it was the US that made Zarqawi bigger of what he was
The insurgency has always been primarily an Iraqi one. Zarqawi's lasting legacy is that he lit the fuse to the sectarian violence. That torch has now been passed to the Shia and Suni death squads that will go on settling sectarian scores until such day when the people either get tired of the bloodbath, or perish altogether in a civil war.

The best thing the US can do is to get out of Iraq at once, and give the Iraqis a chance to sort things out without Crusader interference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
70. but that would defeat the entire purpose of the war, controlling the oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. That was also my interpretation. I wrote a couple days ago:
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 08:08 AM by leveymg
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/8/74541/27082

Does Zarqawi "Elimination" Signal Bush Deal With Iran?
by leveymg
Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:45:41 AM PDT

UPDATED. It's widely conceded within the U.S. intelligence community that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Sunni militant, has served as an asset in U.S. efforts to slow Iran's consolidation of control over Southern Iraq.

His killing by a U.S. air strike Wednesday, following a tip received from the Shi'a controlled Iraqi gov't and a betrayal within his own organization, comes immediately after an apparent deescalation in tensions between Washington and Iran.

leveymg's diary :: ::
Zarqawi, a Jordanian national, commanded Sunni militia responsible for numerous terrorist attacks targeting religious sites and the population of the 60 percent Shi'a majority in Iraq.

As ABC reported last year, the Bush Administration went out of its way to preserve Zarqawi as an ace up its sleeve to counter the Iranian-allied Shi'a majority regime that would likely succeed Saddam Hussein. According to ABC:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1627197.htm
May 1, 2006.

Abu Musab al Zarqawi ... Former spy says the US had the terrorism figure in its sights.

Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi: ex-CIA spy

A former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

He has told the ABC's Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.


SNIP

On Thursday, The Guardian (UK) reported that Iraqi PM, Nouri al-Maliki, who is Shi'a, announced that Zarqawi had been "eliminated" after high officials in the Shi'a dominated Iraq regime tipped off the U.S. military to his location. Local residents in Baquba, north-east of Baghdad, reportedly informed Iraqi authorities following a grizzly beheading of 17 Shi'a captives in the area. Zarqawi recently released a video in which he called on Sunnis to rise up and exact partisan reprisals. Zarqawi had previously escaped numerous efforts by American forces to locate and kill him. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1792817,00.html

That was followed by a report in the New York Times that Zarqawi had been betrayed by someone within his own organization, that led U.S. surveillance aircraft and Special Forces to his location.

The death of Zarqawi, who recently denounced Iran, comes just as an apparent Bush Administration shift away from threats of military action toward a diplomatic solution to rising U.S.-Iranian tensions.

Far from the huge victory for the U.S. military that this is being portrayed, the killing of Zarqawi marks the beginning of the end of U.S. attempts to control the outcome in Iraq, and a compromise with Iran, which will surely now move to consolidate control over oil-rich majority Shi'a areas of southern and central Iraq.
____________
2006. Mark G. Levey

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. Glad he's fucking dead!
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 07:20 AM by Breeze54
"In May, Zarqawi made himself into a star of the Internet with a homemade snuff video
that really got people talking. The video, released with the catchy title
"Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughters an American infidel with his own hands"
delivered pretty much as advertised, ending with a scene of
Zarqawi brandishing the decapitated head of an American civilian named Nicholas Berg."

Fuck him! Glad he's dead!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606090009

Reporting Zarqawi's death, broadcast, cable and major newspaper reports failed
to note Bush administration's reported refusal to eliminate him before Iraq war


A Media Matters for America review of extensive broadcast reporting on June 8 on the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the self-proclaimed Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, found that the three cable networks, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, as well as nightly news reports on NBC, CBS, and ABC, made no reference to widespread reports from 2004 that the Bush administration had as many as three opportunities to eliminate Zarqawi and his terrorist training camp prior to the Iraq war, but elected to wait because killing Zarqawi "could undercut its case for war against Saddam ," in the words of NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski. Articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal published June 9 also omitted that information, although The New York Times ran an op-ed in its June 9 edition that noted, "It has been reported that twice the administration passed on the opportunity to attack his camp in the Kurdish area of Iraq, evidently believing that it would detract from the more important goal of toppling Saddam Hussein." In addition, White House press secretary Tony Snow received no questions from reporters about those alleged forgone opportunities during Snow's 50-minute White House press briefing on June 8, in which the press corps and Snow focused exclusively on Zarqawi's death.

As The Carpetbagger Report weblog noted on June 8, in a March 2, 2004, report, NBC News outlined the administration's repeated failures to eliminate Zarqawi. According to NBC News, in June 2002, the Pentagon identified Zarqawi at a weapons production facility in Kirma, Iraq, and drew up "airtight" plans to use cruise missiles and air strikes to eliminate the terrorist leader;
the plan was reportedly "debated to death" in the National Security Council. Then, in response to "intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe," the Pentagon again submitted plans for an air strike in October 2002 -- but again the administration refused. In January 2003, at the height of the administration's push for the invasion of Iraq, British police reportedly arrested a group of terror suspects in London connected to the ricin
camp in Kirma, and the Pentagon submitted its third attack plan for eliminating Zarqawi.
But, as NBC News reported, by that time, "Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone":

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late -- Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. "Here's a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq," Cressey added.

Parts of the NBC News report were subsequently confirmed by The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), which noted that, as the post-Saddam insurgency grew increasingly violent, questions were raised about why the administration failed to strike at Zarqawi's camp given that President Bush had said "he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide." The Journal also reported that military officials considered the intelligence on his whereabouts "sound" and "one of the best targets we ever had."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pooja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. death is death... it is not something to be proud of
We are so happy we killed this enemy. Last I looked, he never came to America and killed our civilians. I am certainly not defending terrorists. I do not condone violence. But why are we so happy about taking the lives of other people. What makes that something good? Somebody please explain why we are glorifying war when we know it destroys lives for years to come. Zarqawi was nothing before US went to Iraq. We created the monster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Who's "so happy"?
Bush and his minions are because they think it'll give them a "leg up."
Fat chance!

I'm not rejoicing but I'm not crying either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. Maybe a bit of a double standard?
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 09:32 AM by KevinJ
Note I say "maybe": if you're as unequivocal that US soldiers deserve death for their role in war-time atrocities, then there's no double standard, it's maybe just a bit harsh. But if you're railing against Zarqawi because he considered himself to be at war and felt that being "at war" justified and necessitated performing unspeakable acts of violence, well, then he's far from being the only one who has adopted that position. Don't get me wrong, I consider his actions entirely reprehensible, but I don't see them as being fundamentally all that different than torturing and murdering suspects, illegally detaining people in gulags, kidnapping suspects and removing them to countries where there are no basic legal protections, or bombing densely-populated neighborhoods in order to possibly take out a single possible military target. They're all logical conclusions from the same starting assumptions that a) we're at war and b) being at war justifies doing anything we damned well please. In a way, our actions are even less excusable than Zarqawi's: Zarqawi is (or at least perceives himself to be) the David fighting the Goliath - he knows that he has no hope of fighting and winning a battle of a conventional sort - so employing extraordinary measures is the only hope he and his cause have. As the "Goliath" in this contest, what's our excuse for reprehensible behavior?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. "War is not healthy for children or other living things." n/t




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. ?
Sorry, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning. What was the point you were making? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
76. War is bad is the point
and although I take no pleasure in this man's death, I am relieved that his evil influence is done. I'd like to see Bin Laden go away too. Still...!

As for things done by our soldiers, they are told to do horrible things. In the military, you must obey. I also think that re-deploying soldiers over and over into this nightmare is getting to their minds. It is all wrong and it is ALL the fault of the pResident and his sick neo-con cabal. Let's put blame where it's due. Let's put the pressure on this sick government to pull our troops out.

War is not healthy for children and other living things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
30. Last I looked, Zarqawi killed our troops, the Iraqi people...
...and even American civilians who were in Iraq (that was Zarqawi who personally cut off Nick Berg's head in front of a video camera.)

If anything else, at least some semblence of justice has been served with Zarqawi being sent down to Hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pooja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Cause and Effect
Why has Zarqawi killed so many... because we are there. No doubt the attrocities that he committed were heinous, but you need to examine why this man came to power. Zarqawi is the effect of Bush and his stupid war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
56. He was killing people long before...
We were ever in Iraq. In fact, some speculate he was in the kurdish north before 2003, and has been linded to several assasinations before the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. Yes, he was killing Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's
With CIA help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
66. The US no-fly zones protected him.
Hussein would have killed these Ansar al Sunna people years ago.
It was the idiotic US invasion that enabled Zarqawi to leave his US-protected hideout in the Kurdish area along the Iranian border and move to Baghdad.
Too bad Bush didn't bother to familairize himself with Iraq before he invaded.

At least his father knew something about Iraq. Here's Bush Sr. on why he didn't invade in 1991:

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneold1-4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. "some semblence of justice "
How can we accept this conundrum when we "house" for decades, in death rows, those of our own who are killers of men, women, and children? We give all of them medical care that costs more than half the free children clinics in the US. They are still causing death!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #30
42. Had we not invaded Iraq, there wouldn't have been a Zarqawi
Saddam was an avowed enemy of Al-Qaeda and of Islamic fundamentalism.

If you want justice, real justice instead of the white Christian Crusading version of it, you would want to see Bush and Cheney being sent down to Hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. All the biographies dispute that...
Here's one--> (I've read others very similar.)
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=ZARQAWI-PROFILE-06-08-06&cat=II
snip-->

"Al-Zarqawi: From street tough to terrorist

By LISA HOFFMAN
Scripps Howard News Service
June 08, 2006

In his youth, he was a street tough in a poor mining town in Jordan, a hard drinker and a brawler.
A school dropout, he was jailed as a teenager for drug possession and sexual assault.

It was during that time behind bars in Jordan in the mid-1980s that Abu Musab al-Al-Zarqawi
lit his inner flame of Islamic radicalism that would, ultimately, lead him to the top ranks
of Islamic extremists and infamy as America's most-wanted man in Iraq.

U.S. 500-pound bombs Wednesday night brought to an end al-Zarqawi's two-year reign
as the ruthless chief of "al Qaeda in Iraq," killing the bald and bespectacled man in an air
assault on an isolated safe house near the Iraqi city of Baquba.

Born Ahmad Fadhi Nazzal al-Khalayleh on Oct. 20, 1966, al-Zarqawi's path to the top ranks
of terrorism began with his exposure in jail to Islamic extremists dedicated to the overthrow
of Jordan's monarchy.
He served seven years for conspiring against the government and earned a reputation for violence there.


He took the name al-Zarqawi when he signed on to the broader causes of establishing Islamic republics
and the eradication of Israel,
according to analyses by the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York think tank, and other experts.

At 20, he joined the battles in Afghanistan against Soviet invaders.
By 1999, he had allegedly formed a terror training camp there for Jordanians,
which was loosely allied with Taliban extremists and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.
While in Afghanistan he was convicted in absentia for a failed plot to bomb tourist hotels in
Amman, Jordan, during the millennium celebrations.

By 2000, al-Zarqawi had developed a reputation for expertise in toxic weapons -
particularly the poison ricin - and explosives,
a skill he reportedly shared with Islamic extremist recruits at his training camp." <--snip

continued.....

I'm sure you can find similar biographies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. That still does not change the fact that it was the US that made Zarqawi
the terrorist that he became, for had it not been for the US criminal invasion and cruel occupation of Iraq, Zarqawi would have remained someone else's problem. Saddam had people like Zarqawi executed or imprisoned on a regular basis. When the US removed Saddam, it opened the door to Islamic radicals into Iraq, whether from Al-Qaeda or from neighboring Iran.

Those fools that laud Bush today, should keep in mind that it was Bush that created thousands of new terrorists by his crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. I don't
disagree that bush&Co used him as an example to make the case for invading Iraq.
But he was trying to make a name for himself also.
ie. Jordon named him a terrorist and he posted video asassinations/beheadings on the net.
If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, would Zarqawi have become famous on his own? :shrug:
I guess we'll never know but he certainly seemed to be heading in that direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. But Zarqawi would not have been in Iraq
for he would have been a wanted man there, and Saddam's secret service would have caught him. All those people that were killed by Zarqawi in Iraq, would be alive today had Bush not invaded Iraq, and the Golden Mosque would still be in one piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. See?
That's the problem. We really don't know that's a fact, do we?
There were 'rumors' that he, in fact, was in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan.
I don't think anybody will ever know all the facts about this guy.
JMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Those "rumors" were lies from Bush/Cheney and Chalabi
Bush had to say that Iraq was connected to 9-11, and many of the American Crusaders in Iraq still believe that bullshit about Iraq being involved on 9-11 plot.

We do know that the US and the UK have never told the truth about WMDs and Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #62
73. Did you forget Rumsfeld?
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 03:44 PM by Breeze54
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/050706.html
snip-->
"But Rumsfelds Zarqawi-in-Baghdad line demonstrates why the Bush administration still deserves no trust on Iraq.

While superficially the Zarqawi-in-Baghdad line may sound like damning evidence against Iraq,
it actually means almost nothing since theres no proof that Husseins government was aware
of Zarqawis presence, let alone collaborated with him.


By this Rummy logic, the U.S. military should have invaded Florida and jailed its governor,
Jeb Bush, because terrorist Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers lived in the state for
more than a year before the attacks. Some even attended Florida flight schools.

But no administration official has ever accused Jeb Bush of complicity in the 9/11 attacks
just because Atta operated under the nose of George W. Bushs younger brother.

Yet, Rumsfeld justifies invading a nation halfway around the world because its government
failed to detect a then-obscure terrorist getting medical treatment in a hospital.


(Following this Rummy logic further, one would have to conclude that the U.S. occupation
forces and the new Iraqi government are now colluding with Zarqawi because he has operated
in and around Baghdad for the past three years without being caught.)

Despite the irrationality behind the administrations Zarqawi-in-Baghdad argument,
it has rarely been challenged by major U.S. news outlets.
After the May 4 confrontation, the most any U.S. news outlet did was play McGoverns retort
without further explanation or comment.

Besides not holding the Bush administration accountable for these sorts of Iraq War deceptions,
the U.S. news media often goes on the offensive against Bushs critics,
painting them as either unbalanced or vengeful.

For instance, after the exchange in Atlanta,
McGovern faced questions from CNN anchor Paula Zahn about the CIA veterans motives.

How much of an axe do you have to grind with Secretary Rumsfeld? Zahn asked.
(Note she didnt ask if McGovern had an axe to grind with Rumsfeld, but rather how much.)

Its not a matter of axes to grind, McGovern responded. Its a matter of telling the truth.
And we pledged, in my day at the CIA, to tell it without fear or favor, to tell it like it is.
And, when I see that corrupted, that is the real tragedy of this whole business. <--snip

--------------------------------
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/May/middleeast_May570.xmlion=middleeast&col=
Khaleej Times Online >> News >> MIDDLE EAST

Saddam refused to hand Zarqawi to Jordan: King Abdullah
(AP) 19 May 2005
snip-->
"However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information
of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "but our demands
that the former regime hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said."<15><--snip
-------------------------

And do we know if any of what King Abdullah states is true? No.
But yes, I'm well aware of the bush regime lies and the rumor mill.
That was my point. There isn't any proof, as far as we know, one way or the other.
But Jordan seems to have some background info on Zarqawi. He's their homeboy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #60
68. You can take it as fact.
Saddam did not allow religious fundamentalists in Iraq.
If the chimera of Zarqawi WAS active in North Iraq in the 90's, it was only because he was protected by the US "No Fly" zones, and may have been receiving direct aid from the US to destabilize the Saddam government (stress on "may").

These guys (religious jihadists) were a direct threat to Saddam. You CAN take that to the bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Feed the hate
it's good for you.

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Look who's talking!
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 08:12 AM by Breeze54
POT-KETTLE-BLACK

Looked in a mirror lately? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drops_not_Dope Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. Bush hears the news...
The big crime here is that Bush could've taken him out many times but didn't
because he was using him TO FURTHER THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!


What was the first response of the president upon learning of the killing of the notorious, evil, deadly assassin mastermind of al Qaeda in Iraq? "That would be good." WHAT? THAT WOULD BE GOOD? Isn't that what you'd expect from someone who is really thinking, DEAD! OH SHIT, DEAD! FUCK, HOW THE FUCK, now we'll have to appoint another mastermind to prolong the killing and the Halliburton contracts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Absolutely. They'll need another figure upon whom to focus the hatred
of the easily entertained and manipulated slow-witted ones among us, by all means. If they aren't actively engaged in hating strangers in other countries who are designated as very scary, with constant reinforcement on cheap cable news channels like CNN showing how wild their eyes are, woooooo, real scary, they forget the war, and forget to support their filthy, diseased Republican leadership, and then where would we be?

They might start focusing on the pilfering of the U.S. Treasury, and the destruction of our entire country going on back home.
Welcome to D.U., Drops_not_Dope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
29. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
39. Your "feelings" on this matter being utterly beside the point
I'm glad he's dead, too, although I would have liked better to see him captured alive. But that's neither here not there. Jeez, the American "How I feel" culture is really one of the worst developments in the history of the planet. I think it makes people just bone stupid, as if the response to every event should be "Here's how I feel about it." Yeah, well who gives a fuck how you feel? Or rather, why is how you feeel of any relevance to anyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. It's a messageboard...
I'm allowed to post my opinions and feelings here. Just as you are and you just did.
That's how it works. Your entitled to disagree or not. That's your perogative.
;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. Who said you weren't allowed
I just said it was stupid and irrelevant. And that would be my opinion, as you correctly point out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. as was your comment....
"stupid and irrelevant"
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #52
81. But at least I gave reasons
And didn't base my judgment on my own sweet precious emotional state, like you. "Here's how I feel." Yeah, and why does that matter in the least bit? Oh, you're "glad." Well, whatever. Your gladness means zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
43. Exactly. For someone who beheaded people, I don't care if our soldiers
killed him after the bombs or before whatever the case may be. I would have rather captured him alive so we could humiliate him, but I couldn't care less in what manner he was killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veronica.Franco Donating Member (752 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Unless Zarqawi was the one who gave the order for the United States
military to invade Iraq, and, in particular, to employ massive airpower (Shock & Awe) against not just military, but civilian infrastructure as well, then I think Bush gets the reasonable presumption as the person who ordered the most deaths and Bush is certainly the one who drew Zarqawi to Iraq for the express purpose of furthering Bush's own political goals by intentionally stirring up this hornet's nest ... Bush's warmongering has been Zarqawi's best recruiter ...

That's not to excuse Zarqawi, who was a monster that the world is better off without ... But, we cannot excuse our own country's indiscriminate killing of civilians just because we do it from the skies and not with sword or explosives wrapped around our bellies ... Zarqawi is easy for the west to make a monster of, but he is certainly NOT the biggest one ... Bush holds that position ...

You can't say in the same breath that we are in Iraq to free the people from a dictatorship, and then turn around abuse a dying person who is held in our custody ... evil man or good man ... it is our conduct that is being judged here ... win the battle ... lose the war ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. I agree about Bush, but I don't excuse disgusting crimes because some
people are worse. Zarqawi's death is a good thing. I think it won't help anything, but I still am glad that the world is rid of him. I would have much prefered that we captured him and humiliated him, but I'm not going to be screaming about this disgusting worm's rights in a country that doesn't have the proper legal machinery to even deal with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicRic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
14. If true he could have lived ,this shows ...
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 07:40 AM by NicRic
the pure stupidity of the people running this whole fiasco ,here you have one of the top leaders of what you consider your enemy ,a possible wealth of information , and instead of trying to keep him alive you beat the wounded man to death ! In WW2 they where smart enough to take the top leaders of the enemy and try and get ifo out of them to help find other strong holds etc. This whole publicity bombing is so obvious and sickening ! However you get what you expect ,bush on TV reveling in the death of another human being killed ,I just wonder how many chldren and women and inocents they had to take out to get their headline ? Iam sure this person probably deserved what he got ,however to see a so called born again ,finding such joy in the death of another ,is completely in contrast to the teachings of the book he claims is his favorite to read ,like he really ever read the Bible .Give me a break !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Exactly, Zarqawi was a high value mastermind terrorist
The supposed leader of al CIAda in Iraq.

If BushCo really want to stop terrorism and the insurgency, they would have done everything they could to keep him alive.

But no, they didn't want another Saddam circus. Wanted Dead or Alive has been revised to Wanted Dead Only.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. When will we ever learn?
We did the same thing here right after 9/11. Remember all of the FBI "interviews" of Arab Americans? We had thousands of people in the US who had fled the Middle East and come to the US precisely because they hated people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban; these were guys who would have cheerfully have shared everything they knew about those regimes because they hated them even more than we did! However, instead of seeking their voluntary cooperation, we bullied, threatened, rough-handled, and harrased them and their wives and their children, in their homes, at their jobs, in their places of worship, where their children went to school. It didn't take long at all for them to figure out that we weren't all that much better than the regimes they'd fled, so we could just kiss their asses before they'd offer up so much as a hint of useful intelligence. 5,000 interviews and god only knows how many violations of basic civil rights later, we wound up getting precisely nothing - not one, single, solitary morsel of useful intelligence. Talk about a wasted opportunity!

But we keep on in our faith that the best way to approach every problem is to simply bash it with a hammer, so we lose one intelligence gold mine after another. Small wonder we're faring so poorly in our "war" on terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. No small wonder
It's deliberate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pooja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
15. The story sounds an awful like those stories you here when..
there is a cop killer caught. Somehow they are never taken alive, or they conveniently expire in police custody. I cannot believe that if US forces caught up with this man that they didn't have a little revenge.

This whole war is starting to remind me of that book 'Lord of the Flies'... Kill Piggy anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
20. First sentence says the Iraqi was one of the first on the scene of the -
- airstrike and saw American's beating a man. Your theory is that the strike was called after the "US found Zarqawi still alive and he died/killed in custody" and THEN the airstrike was called to cover the deed. The timeline doesn't seem to fit. Was the Iraqi there before the strike or one of the first after the strike(which is what the article states)?

An alternate theory would be that this Iraqi is attempting to cover someone. It's been said that the info to find Zarqawi came from Iraqi's. Could this Iraqi have had a hand in that - or knows a person who does - and created a smokescreen cover to avoid retribution from friends/family/insurgents?

Either way Zarqawi won't be sawing the heads off of any more people and that's a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Originally, they said they used helicopters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a joint attack by U.S. helicopters and Iraqi forces, ABC news reported on Thursday.

It said U.S. helicopters hit a house near Baquba, 40 miles (65 km) north of Baghdad, at 6 p.m. local time on Wednesday.

"Zarqawi was apparently injured at first... The Americans found him. They handed him over to the Iraqis and he later died of his injuries," ABC said.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-08T075226Z_01_GEO825572_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-ZARQAWI.xml



It seems this version of events is closer to the truth, then the story put out initially by the DOD.

I think they had him in custody and killed him and then they called in the fighter jets to make it looks like he was killed in the bombing. So far the official story is falling apart at the seams and the DOD version continues to evolve.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. No, ABC news reported that...
...as previously discussed - that does NOT mean the initial reports were accurate.

When a major story breaks, many reports are simply wrong. ABC may well have gotten a first hand report that Zarqawi was dead, but only 2nd, 3rd or even 4th hand reports on exactly what happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Except in this case, it's the original official story
that got it all wrong and the official story is the one that keeps changing.

If US forces were on the ground and could be the only source for the story to begin with, why are they having such a hard time with figuring out the official version?

Same exact thing that happened with Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
21. I figure this is a pack of lies, myself.
Why would US troops really believe they knew this guy was Zarqawi over other Arabs? Can they tell the difference between one Arab and another THAT well? And after-the-fact bombing? There's enough real trouble in the world we don't need to make more up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
25. With such public fanfare from the *Co mal-administration,
there will (hopefully) no longer be any excuses for this "war" dragging on and on and on.

We should be leaving Iraq very soon as there will be no more terrorist strikes or insurgency in Iraq.

I guess the pulling out of troops can begin tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Astrad Donating Member (374 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
46. The use of the term 'Iraqi' in the headline has the effect
of calling the allegation into question (as in 'of course an Iraqi would say that!'). I mean why not say 'local resident' or 'witness'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
64. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
51. If this man is being truthful, our troops did a stupid thing on
many levels. Zarqawi was worth more alive than dead. Much propaganda and possibly intelligence could have been gained. He's dead, now he is useless.

The rules of war are there for a reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSun Donating Member (324 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
53. He knew too much
If you know too much about George, Cheney and Rummy, you will eventually end up dead when your usefullness ends. If we were spreading democracy we would want this guy to stand trial. Obviously that would be dangerous to the BFEE. Saddam is already causing them problems at trial.

Chalabi is also a convicted crimminal but as he is still usefull he is part of the new Iraqi 'democracy'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
54. They lied to us about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman
They already admit photoshopping the Zarqawi death photo.

Don't believe anything you hear from our gov't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
71. They admitted "photoshopping" the photo?
What a surprise. Do you have a source for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. PBS News Hour last night
They showed a Pentagon news conference.

The press hammered the presiding general on several points - he admitted that the death photo that was distributed to the press was indeed photoshopped "out of respect" (WTF).

They also showed the "unphotoshopped" version which was nasty - but not all that nasty (considering that two 500 lb bombs were involved).

Someone asked if there had been an official autopsy and whether Mr. Z had any gun shot wounds - no answer to those questions...

I would take anything the DOD has to say about this with a large grain of NaCl...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #72
78. Thanks for the info. Damn these people. Do they EVER tell the truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. Thanks for that verification
An LA Times story hinted at that as well: "coalition forces had "cleaned up his face" for otherwise unaltered photographs of his corpse".

It wasn't entirely clear what they meant by cleaned up, but your post explains it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq10jun10,0,5151197.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
59. Then You Call This Witness A Liar, Ma'am
He is clearly speaking of events after the bombing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. Yup! And, apparently, he wasn't in the house "precisionly striked",....
,...but rather a casuality outside that strike.

Have the DNA tests been revealed *LOL*? Will this "boogey man" reappear for the fourth or fifth time?

How many were instanteously murdered, without process, without justice, without "democracy" in this brand new faux success on some bullshit war on terror.

I'd like to focus on the definition of terror and everything within that realm. "Terror". How many observations of "terror" does it take to stop a war on it particularly since so much of it exists within our own country and is inspired by our own countrymen and is spread by those who are NUMB to the damage they do to others in their own interest.

"Terror".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
83. I jumped ahead a little in my scenario
and I left out the part about the first attack on the house when they came in with the helicopters. The original reports claim that the US and Iraqis carried out a joint operation using helicopters for the attack. I believe that is when they injured him and then the ground crew went in and picked him up.

What followed is possibly what the witness describes here:

The Iraqi, identified only as Mohammed, said he lives near the house where al-Zarqawi was killed. He said residents put a bearded man in an ambulance before U.S. forces arrived.

"When the Americans arrived they took him out of the ambulance, they beat him on his stomach and wrapped his head with his dishdasha, then they stomped on his stomach and his chest until he died and blood came out of his nose," Mohammed said, without saying how he knew the man was dead.


I think the two 500 lb bombs were dropped after the fact to cover up the mess.

I hope this helps to clarify my original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
67. Here's my theory about what happened:
First of all, I don't believe an effing word this Administration spews or what the media that does what enables it!!!!

So, even if its true that this was/is the man known as "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi", and that he is in fact dead, then the reality is that I don't trust a damn word these lying bastards say, and I question any "facts" and background behind it all.

What a sad time we live in....like citizens of the former USSR or other communist eastern bloc nations, the "official gov't story" gets told and the citizens roll their eyes back. That is what has happened here in our country. I don't know many people who do believe anything this government says about anything anymore.

That said, I can tell you my "theory" about the man known as "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi": Whether he is the man born with that name or not is unclear and frankly I don't care. My guess all along has been that just like he suddenely appeared into the spotlight, he has disappeared. Where he came from, and how is the big question. My guess has been that just like Bin Ladin, he has been working with the CIA and US Gov't in some capacity (informant, infiltrator,etc.) and funded and trained by the US somewhere along the line. My guess is that he purposely got spotlighted when this Administration needed to have the focus taken off Bin Ladin and some nemesis created for the War on Iraq and to explain things when they started going terribly bad. I actually became convinced of this when the "Zarqawi video" of him not knowing how to shoot a gun came out and he was standing there wearing new sneakers. My guess is that he does know how to shoot a gun and that video was a total set-up to make the man known as "Zarqawi" to look like a horses ass so that we could all laugh at him and that any Iraqi or Muslim trying to follow him would be shamed as to the fact that he was a loser and not a leader. I saw the images of the house that got destroyed and heard the reports that Zarqawi was still talking and alive when he was taken away on a stretcher and then "died" later. Maybe he is dead. But there are amazing makeup and special effects that can make anyone look dead and beaten. Maybe he is somewhere getting reconstructive surgery for his next "mission" and getting all new papers and identity. And maybe he was shot and killed or beaten to death in his final hour. My theory of him being on the payroll still stands even if he is dead. Everyone to this Administration is expendible. And if Zarqawi was working for the US all along and being put out their as the big bad Boogieman terrorist responsible for it all, its possible that in the very end, they killed him when he was more valuable to them than alive.

Wasn't it so convenient in week where so much is going wrong with the economy, the War in Iraq etc. and as we approach the 2,500 mark, that the story that could suddenely come out and make them look like the US's strategy on the War on Terror is working?

Once again whether its true or not that he is dead, I don't believe a friggin word these lying bastards say anymore and even if he is dead, I don't buy and never did buy the official story of the man who seemed to come out of nowhere....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Yes. I accept your guess.
Unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #67
80. Your speculations are interesting
I must confess, I have also had some thoughts along those lines. It is possible that he was a plant, and his time was through. Perhaps this bombing was a coverup, so that he could go on to a new job. Perhaps he was just disposed of, the way one throws out an old shoe once it has outlived its usefulness.

Or perhaps he was just what the Pentagon and Bushies said. But the whole war has been a tissue of lies, so it hard to take things at face value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
74. This is a violation of international law and may constitute murder under
common law.

No one is above or below the law. It is the law. No matter how bad a person or sub-human Zarqawi was, and no matter how wonderful the troops and Iraqi police are. No one is above or below the law.

Not to mention that it was covered up, and there were numerous posters here on DU bleating about how his being captured alive changed nothing.

The more we find out, the more violations of law we find committed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSun Donating Member (324 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
75. The real Zarqawi has an artificial leg
Before the Iraq conflict began last March, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said al-Zarqawi received hospital treatment in Baghdad after fleeing Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence sources said he apparently was fitted with an artificial leg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084

Should be an interesting autopsy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
77. There's only one thing to know about this guy:
Bush needed "Al Qaeda" in Iraq, and one of the guys connected to Osama Bin Laden just happened to show up on cue.

They've been keeping tabs on this guy since they were safe-housing him in the north. They recently decided he was more useful dead than as a U.S.-sponsored terrorist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
84. Todays NYT describes
the area, and it's at odds with another description. NYT: the bombed house was ~300 yards off the road, and the nearest house is about 200 yards away. Other description (somewhere upstream on this thread) has it a fairly densely packed neighborhood. Personally, I'd like to live in a densely packed area where I had 200 yards between me and my neighbors. :-)

At that distance, or even half that distance, the difference between having a group of soldiers arrive and beat a person and having a group of soldiers arrive and treat a person is meaningless. Mostly one of interpretation, based on how you feel about the soldiers and about Zarqawi. This was a mostly Sunni part of Diyala. I'm going to go out on a twig and say this guy--and the one I refer to in my next sentence--are Sunnis.

But hey, this also isn't completely in keeping with the report from a different anonymous Arab, that the Zarqawite was on an ambulance, dragged off, and killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Coast Lynn Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
85. Here's my theory
Zarqawi was killed in an air strike by US forces. Good job. Good riddance.

You tacked "(Zarqawi)" on to your headline, without basis.

"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-Qaida leader."

Lots of beards in that part of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. Even the DOD now admits
that Zarqawi was alive when they captured him. In other words, he did not die in the bombing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Coast Lynn Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. And?
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. They also admit now
Edited on Sun Jun-11-06 11:13 AM by DoYouEverWonder
that he was in an ambulance and they were administering medical treatment.

This is completely opposite from what both Rumsfeld and General Casey claimed 3 days ago, when they said he was killed when two 500 lb bombs were dropped on his house. There is a big difference from that story and dieing while in US Custody. Why did they lie? Why didn't they just tell the truth to begin with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Bushco will walk ten miles to tell a lie
Rather than stand still and tell the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Coast Lynn Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #89
98. Gosh
Must be he isn't dead after all, then. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
88. Since he is Mabus, the third anti-Christ, they can hardly be
blamed for "snapping."

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
91. To the many DU posters who say they are glad Zarqawi is dead, or
the world is better off, or one less ruthless killer is okay by them, etc., I would just ask you to reflect on how the line on human rights keeps getting pushed further and further toward fascism, and toward approval of killing and brutality. If the Bush junta had a choice--which it seems increasingly clear that they did--why didn't they arrest him, and press charges against him in Iraq, or here, or in the Hague, so that all may know what he is accused of, evidence could be presented, and he could defend himself? Why "whack" him, to to speak, like a criminal gang would do?

If he was who they said he was, and did what they allege he did, and considered himself to be in a war--say, part of the Iraqi resistance against invasion by the US--would he not be entitled to be considered a prisoner of war, and his culpability judged by Geneva Convention standards? What right does the US--which unilaterally invaded this country, with no UN support--have to summarily execute someone whom they believe has been resisting their illegal invasion?

What ever happened to the Geneva Conventions, anyway? We have hundreds of thousands of troops in the country; we have numerous bases; we have total air control--what are we doing targeting and bombing a house? How could we be sure there weren't innocents inside or all around, or that the suspect we thought was in the house was actually the right man? What if a neighbor child had decided to run into the house, for some reason? Bombing is very imprecise, no matter what they say. It is the most brutal course. Why choose that rather than surrounding the house with thousands of troops and arresting the suspect we believed to be there? That slower and more careful means would have better insured that no innocents were killed, and that lawfulness and decency were preserved.

Secondly, I would ask that you consider who this mysterious man was, and also, how we know that the dead man in that house was anyone guilty of anything? How can we trust the Bush junta's word for who he was? How can we trust the Bush junta's word for what he did? Was this not a high-tech, pre-planned, brutal lynching?

There are too many "ifs" to the statement "I'm glad he's dead." If he was a ruthless killer who beheaded innocent people; if it was the right man; if innocents hadn't been killed; if he wasn't a Bush Cartel operative to begin with, who could have told us who he really was, had he not been killed. The law--and the Geneva Conventions, and the UCMJ--are designed to try to PREVENT miscarriages of justice, in which accusations are treated as proven crimes, in which innocent people are wrongly accused, in which those in power abuse those without power, and in which the powerful WILL misuse the power of life and death, and the power of torture, and the power of indefinite detention, for self-serving purposes. They are also designed to try to uncover the truth of a crime or crimes. Are we now to take Bush's word for who is a criminal, who is guilty, who is an enemy of the state, who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter, and for how crimes are defined?

People who say, "I'm glad he's dead," are buying into all this--buying into George Bush as judge and executioner. This is a very, very serious erosion of legal and ethical standards--and it follows upon numerous, even worse examples, for instance, of tens of thousands of known innocent Iraqi civilians slaughtered without a thought, and numerous innocent people held in indefinite detection and tortured. If we approve of George Bush judging guilt and freely killing whomever he wishes--without trial, without evidence, without any objective entity intervening--what have we become? What have we permitted him and his regime to turn us into? I very carefully said "If we approve of" him doing these things, not "If we let him" do these things--because I am aware that we are powerless to prevent it (we have been shorn of our right to vote--our main power as a sovereign people). But we shouldn't let ourselves be led down the garden path of loss of our civilization, by forgetting what civilization is, and what our democracy is all about, by approving of his brutal and unlawful acts. We might as well be the decadent Romans, regaled with "bread and circuses" and bloody entertainments.

The preponderance of opinion seems to be that this was, in fact, Zarqawi, and that Zarqawi did, in fact, kill and behead Shias and others and seek to incite a civil war. Even Osama bin Laden and Iran seem to concur on who it was, and on dislike for his crimes--although suspicion of those sources in connection with the Bush Cartel is certainly justified. I still say--especially since the Bush junta was tracking him for years, and had many opportunities to kill him and to stop his activities--why bomb his house--with all the uncertainty that that creates, the potential loss of innocent life, and the disrespect for law and justice? (Are Osama bin Laden and Iran to be our deciders on what justice is?) What it did for Bush was to foster the excitement of brutality--and the thrill of Bush's big boots stomping the "vermin," which will likely inspire rage and bloodshed in response, possibly even mindless rage and bloodshed, with no political goal at all, among both Iraqis and our troops, and perhaps others. The powers-that-be solve problems with 500 lb. bombs. Why shouldn't everybody else--with whatever poundage or fire power they can muster?

I'm with Michael Berg--Nick's father--on this one. I am never happy when a human being is killed. The cycle of violence and revenge needs to be ended, and the only way to end it is to STOP KILLING. I know that some human beings probably need to be confined, and are in need of healing. Killing people--no matter what they have done--only perpetuates more killing. And to have a president running around ordering slaughter every day, at his whim, with himself as judge and executioner, is an abomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johng333 Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Killing Zarqawi was not revenge , it was process of justice system
Had Zarqawi been willing to surrender, he would have had a fair trial. Instead he evaded capture, continued to murder, and was a mortal threat.
The rules are clear that in that circumstance, letal force is justified.



Zarqawi was part of al Qaida since the early 1990's. He was in Afghanistan when the U.S. attacked, was injured and fled to Iraq in 2002, where Saddam gave him aide and comfort.

Zarqawi's al Qaida cell then assasinated a US diplomat in Jordan in 2002, workig from their base in Iraq.

The 9/11 commission report clearly shows that al Qaida was in Iraq since at least the mid '90s, but concluded that they could not find substantial proof linking Saddam to the 9/11 plot.

There was speculation that a secular Iraq would not support al Qaida, and vice versa, Usama Bin Ladin would not support Saddam. But information quite to the contrary has been released

Seeing the Evil In Front of Us
By Christopher Dickey | Sep 9, 2002
Newsweek

The moment of confrontation had come. President Bush warned Saddam Hussein that if he continued to interfere with United Nations weapons inspectors and to shoot at American warplanes over Iraq, he would have to pay the consequences.


So Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression. Chechens in Persian-lamb hats, Moroccans in caftans, delegates who hailed "from Jakarta to Dakar," as one Senegalese put it, poured into Baghdad's Rashid Hotel, where Saddam's minions urged them to embrace jihad as "the one gate to Paradise."


And the greatest holy warrior of all? "The mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers," they were told. "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state," declared Saddam's deputy Ezzat Ibrahim. The Americans had colonized Lebanon; they had colonized Saudi Arabia. But the line against them would be drawn in Iraq. Believers would triumph, said Ibrahim: "Our stand now can lead us to final victory, to Paradise."

That was in January 1993. I was there


http://www.papadoc.net/SeeingtheEvilInFrontofUs.html



Saddams links to terrorism dating back to at least 1993 have been firmly proven. What has not been proven is if he had a hand in 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johng333 Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. specific links between al Qaida - 1993 WTC bombing - and Iraq
One of the bombers was an Iraqi national using an American passport. One of the bombers fled capture and was hiding in Iraq where he was last known to be until the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Links to al Qaida and Iraq go back to 1993 and are tied directly to attacks on America.


In addition Abu Nidal Organization has been operating out of Iraq since 1998 and has killed over 900 people including American targets.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Saddam evaded capture too ... but we didn't kill him
You shot yourself in the foot with that one statement alone.

As for the connection between Saddam and 9/11, even your leader has stated that there was NO connection several times, in public, on film. Sorry, that doesn't fly in the face of the evidence either.

How about finding something more current to use as your evidence rather than something published in 2002, when many publications were nothing but a propaganda arm of the DoD?


:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. Lethal force is not justified
after you have the target in the ambulance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
96. I think he was ratted out, the US troops found him, killed him, then bomb
bombed his housel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. It seems obvious
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 12:50 PM by DoYouEverWonder
that they had already gotten whatever 'valuable intel' there was to be had before the bombing, because they seem to have no apparent interest in the site after the bombing. Instead, the locals were going in and out unrestricted.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 16th 2021, 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC