Zarqawi Tape Calls on Rebels to Mobilize - Web Site (Reuters)

[VolcanoJen]

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=950378

Monday, November 15, 2004 1:58 p.m. ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - An audio tape purportedly from al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi urged insurgents throughout Iraq to mobilize against U.S.-led forces to prevent them from attacking other cities after Falluja.

"If the enemy finishes in Falluja they will move toward you, so be alert and foil this plan...Advance toward them and rain rockets and mortars down on them," said the man on the tape who also called for attacks on U.S. supply lines in Iraq.

[Trumanway]

1. Zarquai will dodge and and hide...

while killing anyone he can get his hands on. But his end will not change, it is only a matter of time.

[Tempest]

2. You mean like OBL's end?

Zarqawi will have an easier time eluding the U.S. than OBL because his organization is much more widespread.

[Bragi]

3. Indeed...

The US will eventually capture and kill him, just like with Osama. And out of the mayhem, a hundred new Zarqawi's will arise to fill his shoes.

If US influence wasn't doomed in Iraq before Falluja, it certainly is now. It is obvious that US troops can only do even greater harm by staying. US troops should be pulled out of Iraq now.

- B

[minorl]

4. You obviously know the Arab Muslim mind-set

They are family/clan-centric. Eventually they will realize that the US is serious about stabilizing their cities and communities. When they come to that conclusion, they will assume control of their own welfare and safety. The extremists's tactics are in stark opposition to safety to their families and communities. (You can bomb your own neighborhoods and kill and torture your own neighbors only so long before the populace gets fed up and turns the tables.)

It is only a matter of time.

[RuleofLaw]

5. Pretty naive

So all these people who have relatives killed by coalition forces will one day wake up and say: "hey, you know what? Uncle Ahmed got his head blown off, because they want to help us. I don't know why I didn't think of that before" :crazy:

[Bragi]

6. The extremists?

Far as I can tell, the insurgents attack US troops and US-compromised Iraqis and foreigners, and innocents are killed "collaterally" when this happens.

The US, however, deliberately blows away entire cities.

So which one should be called "extremists"?

- B

[minorl]

7. You can't tell too far then...stick with the "wait and see" since

armchair quarterbacking seems much more your schtick.

It isn't pretty, but I've handed out food and water more often than I've laid rounds downrange. Can't say I've every leveled a city in all my 13 years in the USMC.

I hate O'rieily, but his response to Madonna's commets are right on.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/252779p-216449c.html

[Bragi]

12. I read the editorial...

and disagree with all it's main points, as follows:

The New York Daily News writes:

"No sane person can be happy Americans are targets (in Iraq)."

Personally, I am less concerned about US troops being targets in a country they unwisely invaded against the express wishes of most of the world than I am about the massive killing and destruction spree in Falluja.

Frankly, I find 100,000 dead Iraqis (which doesn't even include the Falluja massacre) to be more of a tragedy than whatever peril your unwelcome troops might now be facing.

And I have a solution for their peril: get them out now.

They then write:

"So the issue becomes a simple question: For the sake of national security do U.S. troops have to be in that chaotic country?"

That's so insular and arrogant. They make "chaotic" sound like a natural condition for Iraqis, or something that is totally unrelated to their having been economically and militarily bombed for a decade, and then forcibly invaded and occupied.

They then write:

"Three reasons say yes (to staying). First, if we withdraw from Iraq, the country will likely be run by terrorist sympathizers who will cooperate with Al Qaeda and neighboring Iran."

That is no shocker. It is the predicted, and I think likely, end result of having invaded recklessly and unwisely in the first place.

The longer the US stays there, the more it will be hated, and the more likely will it be that the extremists will win. The US killing machine in Iraq has marginalized whatever moderate voices might have prevailed.

The editorialists then write:

"Two, a civil war could break out inside Iraq, and the bloodbath would be brutal."

The civil war was long predicted to be the result of a reckless invasion, and was the major reason given for not invading. Staying there to kill more civilians and level more cities just increases the human costs and targedy of it all, without doing anything to avoid civil war.

They then write:

"And three, no country would ever trust America again when called upon to actively help us fight terror."

This is laughable.

First, it seems incoherent. Is the idea here that there are countries around the world pining for direct help from the US in actively fighting terrorists in their borders? Get real.

Or is the idea that no-one will help the US fight terrorism abroad in the future if the US now admits that it cannot do any good in Iraq, and pulls out?

Well, if the US pulls out now, then maybe, just maybe, the UN or some collection of credible nations (i.e. France, Germany, Russia) can and will act to try to stabilize the situation.

And even if they can't or won't intervene, piling up more bodies now won't prevent civil war, it will just defer it, and increase the human cost.

fact is that as long as the US is in Iraq, there will be no help from anywhere (Except Fiji. And we mustn't forget Poland.)

Secondly, Bush already beats Osama globally in a two-man race for who people think is the world's most dangerous leader. And the NYDN worries about losing future credibility!

Madonna is right. The NY Daily News isn't.

- B

[Trumanway]

8. The Middle East situation is largely ....

a result of US policy missteps since WWII.

Hindsight being 20 20, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan and Islamic terrorism are where they are today largely because the US created or allowed it.

The only real question, as it boils down to this is: When to use force, and how much force to use.

Like it or not worldwide events eventually get around to affecting the US whether we plan for them or not.

Cutting and running in Vietnam CREATED thousands of communist terrorists that murdered millions. Not cutting and running in WWII reduced Japanese terrorists to near zero and it has remained that way to this day despite two martyr and terrorist creating atomic bombs. The Japanese don't hate us today, instead they bought Hawaii.

Time will tell if we are correcting mistakes in the Middle East or compounding them, but with the force available today we won't have to wait so long to find out.

As an aside, I don't believe that John Kerry would have pulled out had he been elected, but he may have changed tactics.

[minorl]

10. Right on...on ALL counts

[Trumanway]

11. Thank a soldier for our freedoms...

Semper Fi, Marine!!!!

[shrike]

15. You two have been drinking too much koolaid, me thinks

[shrike]

17. If you knew anything about Vietnamese history, which you

obviously don't, you would know that Vietnam successfully fought off numerous invasions by superior armies, via guerrilla warfare. The only way to have "won" in Vietnam would have been to annihilate every man, woman and child.

I also get a wee bit annoyed at the folks who wave the anti-communism banner. Educate yourself about the atrocities committed by our "friends," many of the right-wing governments we helped install.

Oh, BTW, wanna know how WE got Hawaii? We deposed its queen and put a group of a favored capitalists in charge.

[Trumanway]

19. Hi Shrike,....

Well, I do know a little about the history of Vietnam, and that history as far as violent conflict, subjugation, tactics by combatants, and alliances has many parallels in other nations. The Vietnamese are not unique regarding war and conquest. There are similar situations where America won.

Win in Vietnam? Well, I addressed cutting and running, but winning? Very hard, but possible, and without the mass destruction to which you refer. Again with 20 20 hindsight we fought the war the wrong way and America had lost the will to win in Korea.

But that doesn't change the fact that communists murdered millions, and the juntas and dictatorships that we mistakenly supported are pikers in the arena of wholesale murder and genocide, deny it if you wish. I am fully aware of the right wing governments we helped install.

As far as how we got Hawaii, it was standard operating procedure during those days (not that it was right). The Brits got New Zealand, Australia, Caribbean Islands, so did we, and Manhattan. Japanese got Sakalind. Spain, France, Germany and Portugal (even Italy) were there, the Philippines and Cuba were passed around like party favors. Come on! The Japanese influence in Hawaii is a perfect example of peacefully and progressively enabled blending of a diversity of cultures after a violent failure that was redressed in extreme violence. THIS IS HOW THE WORLD WORKS, sorry.

Bottom line, I'm glad the US won in most of these places because it is the only outfit that could win and you and I still post on this board. If others had won, you would be disappeared and I would be liquidated.

As you might have guessed by now, I am a Vietnam vet, and was there at the beginning of this modern division of America. It is important who controls foreign nations and peoples, their motives and intentions. It is important that these nations not succumb to communism, but attain democratic social justice.

We have moved a long way to-wards this in America, we need to continue that here and heal this modern divide in America, while working or fighting for freedom as we can overseas.

If you say we can't export freedom, I say we can't always, but we did with Germany, Japan, Italy, the Philippines, South Korea, Kuwait.

America is not a bad country, there have been some poor decisions, but her citizens are truly great. We started off good and we fixed so many more problems than we created both inside and outside our nation, lets keep on refining ourselves by co-operation.

{retracting pulpit}

Best, Trumanway

[leesa]

18. What a goof you are. Zarqwai has likely been dead for a long time

Why do you believe all this BS coming out of a lying government's mouth.

Besides, foolish one, WE invaded them. WE are the bad guys!

I am so tire3d of gullible, ignorant Americans.

[uppityperson]

9. Do reporters even notice what they write?

I like this sort of line in the news. "even as American forces move against the last remaining pockets of resistance in Fallujah", people in other parts of the country are upset and revolting. duh.

[fedsron2us]

13. The shadowy Zarqawi

who can lose and grow limbs at will. Somehow, just like OBL, he always seems to evade capture. Now, he is suggesting that the Iraqis fighting the occupation should come out and confront the US military in open battle. Sounds like the just sort of plan that would appeal to the Pentagon as it would make destroying the opposition so much easier. Any guerilla worth his salt will know that this tactic has no chance. Their best option is to wage a hit and run war.

[PATRICK]

14. And the Viceroy Of Iraq

awakes to find a "Z" etched onto his gold leafed headboard.

[VegasWolf]

16. Whack a mole, kill one insurgent, get 10 more. Too bad chimpanzee

never studied history.