Does anyone believe this propaganda: Zarqawi was alive shortly after bombing

[liberal N proud]

Or am I just too skeptical here:
They dropped 2 500 pound bombs on the house which is reduced to rubble and they carted the man off by stretcher?
I am also somewhat skeptical that the body would even be intact.

Al-Zarqawi was alive shortly after bombing

He died after ‘he mumbled something,’ military spokesman says

WASHINGTON - A mortally wounded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive and mumbling on a gurney when Iraqi police arrived at the site bombed by U.S. forces there, a top American military spokesman said Friday.

Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, briefing military reporters at the Pentagon from his post in Baghdad, said he learned that al-Zarqawi was alive after getting briefings on the military operation that netted al-Zarqawi and several others.

“He mumbled something but it was indistinguishable and it was very short,” Caldwell said.

The U.S. military earlier had displayed images of the battered face of al-Zarqawi and reported that he had been identified by fingerprints, tattoos and scars. Biological samples from his body also were delivered to an FBI crime laboratory in Virginia for DNA testing. The results were expected in three days.

Caldwell said Friday that authorities made a visual identification of al-Zarqawi upon arriving at the site of the airstrike.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13222000/

[greyl]

1. How does it add up to propaganda? nt

[liberal N proud]

Anything from the bu$h regime, I view as propaganda until proved better

Just don't trust the regime, they have lied too many times.

[greyl]

11. You don't understand.

How would would him being alive shortly after the bombing aid the bu$h regime?

[liberal N proud]

18. More news bandwidth for the story

They are going to play this all the way to November if they can

[greyl]

21. I don't think anyone cares if he was alive for a few minutes or not.

I don't see how his being alive shortly after the bombing can be a feather in the cap in the bush admin.
If anything, it feeds the non-skeptical conspiracy theorists.

[951-Riverside]

25. Re: "I don't think anyone cares if he was alive for a few minutes or not."

You thought wrong.

I don't see how his being alive shortly after the bombing can be a feather in the cap in the bush admin.

...2 500 lb bombs and he's ALIVE???????

You don't see a problem with that?

If anything, it feeds the non-skeptical conspiracy theorists.

Rewind to 2003-04: Iraq doesn't have WMD's?

Pffft! Crazy liberal conspiracy theorists.

[greyl]

31. Ah, your angle is that the alleged bombs didn't kill him?

If someone told me the bombs landed on his head, I could state with certainty that the bombs would have killed him instantly. However, nobody has told me that.
As it is, neither you or I know where he was exactly when the bombs dropped, so to claim that it's impossible that the bombs didn't kill him instantly is equal to jumping to unwarranted conclusions about facts not in evidence.

[951-Riverside]

19. greyl he's just stating this Bush admin is full of shit

Why should we believe them now, greyl?

[greyl]

24. No, he isn't.

He's suggesting the story about zarqawi being alive for a short time after the bombing is propaganda, and asking if he's "being too skeptical".
Maybe I'm just reading too carefully. ;)

[liberal N proud]

28. I trust nothing coming from the bu$h regime or their media whores

At least until I can verify differently, I hold all information coming from the talking heads to be possible propaganda.

These monsters are capable of fabricating anything to further their agenda.

[rocktivity]

37. Now that the afterglow has worn off and logic has set in

they've had to explain why Zaqawri's body was intact enough to be identified after getting buried under the rubble made by two 500-pound bombs. I mean, don't you think his face would have been crushed? I think he was killed earlier and his body was produced at the most politically apporpriate time.

:headbang:
rocknation

[greyl]

38. Why would I assume his face would have been crushed?

I don't have the necessarily detailed facts to leap to that conclusion.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I don't see any reason not to believe it...

since I don't see any sort of reason to lie about it. Cui bono?

[Scout1071]

3. Does that mean he wasn't in the building that sustained the 500lb bomb?

How could anyone possibly survive that?

[liberal N proud]

14. I am just saying...

Drop those kinds of bombs and wreak that kind of damage and to still be alive?

I don't know.

[Scout1071]

20. Two 500 lb bombs? He would have to be the man of steel to survive that! n

[rpgamerd00d]

23. He could easily survive the two bombs used - read this:

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=2219&eeid=4972586&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt

WASHINGTON (AP) - Of the two bombs that flattened the safe house in which terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, the first to strike was a type the Air Force has used for 30 years.

The second was a new weapon whose first use in combat was in October 2004 against - coincidentally - a building in Iraq said by the U.S. military to be hosting a "confirmed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi terrorist meeting."

This time they got it right. An F-16C Fighting Falcon jet dropped both bombs - first a 500-pounder known as a GBU-12, guided to its target by a laser designator. It has been in use since 1976, mainly as an anti-armor weapon.

The second was a GBU-38, a relatively lightweight bomb guided to its target by satellite signal. F-16s based at Balad, just north of the area where Zarqawi's safe house was attacked, have been operating with the GBU-38 for less than two years. Its smaller explosive power is designed to limit unintended damage.

==================

If he was down in a basement or on the opposite side of the building from the impact where there were several walls between him and the bombs, he would take very little physical damage.

[liberal N proud]

26. We have all seen the pictures of the rubble left by those bombs

There is nothing but rubble. Unless Abu had a bunker in the house, I just don't see how he could have survived.
Lesser bombs kill our troops with armor everyday.
Do they even have basements in housed in that part of the world? The typical construction of homes in that part of the world doesn't make one think there would be a basement.

Maybe I am too skeptical, but questioning minds want to know.

[rpgamerd00d]

27. That house was specifically a al-Q Safe House.

dunno what fortifications or basements it did or didn't have, but it was specifically a safe house.

[951-Riverside]

30. Its not a fucking safe if thats what you're trying to get it.

[951-Riverside]

22. but but but it happened because they said it did....

liberal N proud you make us Democrats look like idiots (to the likes of Rush Limbaugh) questioning the "official" version of events given to us, its not like this admin has ever "misstated" facts. :sarcasm:

...Library towers :rofl:

[robcon]

4. I believe it.

Why not? If the bomb collapsed the building on him, he might survive for a while. Depends on where he was in the building.

[kurth]

5. Yes, the mythical monster was still alive and kicking and ready to kill

Praised be our President and his brave warriors.

What the hell happened to Haditha?

[papau]

6. Dry ice doesn't last very long - and Bush's "alive" has many meanings n/t

n/t

[underpants]

7. I thought the story now was that they hit it with missiles from helicopter

:shrug:

[Jersey Devil]

8. He said, "Rosebud"

At least that's what's in the movie.

[orwell]

9. Frankly...

...everything coming from the "House of Mirrors" is suspect. That includes the rare truthful statement mixed in with the tons of elephant dung.

This disinformation campaign has been so effective that "the truth" is indiscernable from "catapulting the propaganda."

Mission accomplished!

[Orsino]

10. I dunno.

He wasn't blown to smithereens, apparently. If you believe that the pictures really are of Zarqawi, why not believe that he lived for several minutes after the blast?

[burythehatchet]

12. I heard he mumbled

"George.....Bush......was......too......tough.....for.....me.."

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberal N proud]

16. That's what my little mind keeps telling me, KKKarl is capable of the lies

[rpgamerd00d]

15. Its obvious he didnt die instantly due to the condition of his body.

Therefore, its plausible he lived a short while before dying to internal injuries.

Doesn't mean its true, but its plausible.

[951-Riverside]

17. Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit and more Bullshit

After two 500 lb bombs that appears to have blown debris hundreds of feet from the target not only is he INTACT but he's alive!

BULLSHIT!

and they let the Iraqi police handle the scene?

BULLSHIT!

[paparush]

29. Man, they are WAGGING THE FUCKING DOG with this thing...

[realisticphish]

32. meh

in the London blitzkreid, a LOT of 500+ lb bombs were dropped on civilian areas. Just because a bomb hit your house didn't mean you died (though it made it damn likely). And if you DID die, often it was from the blast/shockwave, not actual shrapnel

[bowens43]

33. Of course I believe it

The administration telling us he was killed in the bombing was a lie. That's what they do.

[liberal N proud]

34. Do you believe he died from injuries received from the bombs?

[Junkdrawer]

35. Wow. I guess my joke "? of the Day: Amana, Frigidare, or Frostpoint?"...

was more on target than I guessed.

How about that!

[Peace Patriot]

36. Whose gurney was he on "when Iraqi police arrived"?

"...mumbling on a gurney when Iraqi police arrived..." Weren't Iraqi police purportedly first on the scene (pushed forward by their US overlords, to make it seem that they are a viable civil force operating under a viable indigenous government?" So, who put him on a gurney? Whose gurney was it?

Also, are we to believe that the Bushites arranged for US bombers to wipe out their villain de jour with 500 lb "precision" bombs and had NO ONE nearby--no troops, no special ops team, no spooks, no spies, no Rumsfeld private contractors--to secure the bloody remains and/or prevent escape? Or shoot witnesses? Or remove the bodies of women and children? Or whatever needs to be done in such an operation to clean it up for the corporate newsstream?

They let somebody or other put someone who may have been Zarqawi on a "gurney" where he was "mumbling" when Iraqi police ARRIVED?

I just read a news report in my local paper reprinted from the L.A. Times (reporter Megan Stack) which provides some details on what appears to have been a phony time stamp on the first photo of a supposed dead Zarqawi (the 6:17 pm time stamp--that would have been within minutes of the bombing, so not possible). US spokesmen brushed it off as a "mistake." The report also details the elaborate prep for this strike, which included raiding many other nearby homes in decoy operations, and options of raiding or bombing Zarqawi's location. And they let somebody else--not US forces (they weren't there yet), and not Iraqi police (they weren't there yet) access the dying Zarqawi and put him on a gurney, where he was "mumbling" when everybody else got there? This MSNBC report also contradicts the 'evidence' of the one of the photos (I forget which one) which had him lying on the ground, not on a gurney.

This news report also reveals that bodies reported to be Zarqawi's wife and child were also found in the bombed out house. Zarqawi, the most "wanted" man in the world, was hiding out with his wife and child? And had scheduled a high level meeting (purportedly with one of his chief lieutenants, the one they were tracking) with his wife and child in the house? Zarqawi, who has eluded them for years, was that stupid?

We've become so inured to Bush-orchestrated death that the slaughter of a woman and a child barely registers in the "news." What are they guilty of? Were their lives given any consideration whatsoever in the decision to drop 500 lb "precision" bombs on them?

[Peace Patriot]

39. A comment on the discussion above: The point of dwelling on the

details of a story put out by notorious liars is to unravel their story and try to discover the truth. A detail like Zarqawi being still alive when IRAQI forces first arrived may or may not be important in itself, but may turn out to be very important in combination with other details. Its plausibility--whether or not someone could survive TWO 500 lb bombs--may not be important. How does it gel with/contradict the other details? You start examining the details, and then, on a scale of 1 to 10, do a preliminary rating of the story as partially or wholly fabricated. Say you rate it a 5, on the basis of contradictions. The story is half fabricated, half true. Then you start to sort out the why's and wherefore's--the number of liars involved, their identities and motives. Say there really is/was a "Zarqawi"--a genuine "terrorist"--who was interfering with Bush Cartel plans to dominate the Mideast oil fields, and they really did bomb and kill him and his wife and child. What would be the point of the contradictory details? Confusion to the enemy? Coverup of NOT-SO-PRECISION bombing? Did they kill lots and lots of innocent Iraqis to get him? (They now have this story--L.A. Times--about "decoy" raids on many other nearby locations. What's with that? Raids of WHOM? What happened to the presumably innocent raided people?).

Or, if your preliminary B.S rating is higher--say an 8, or a 9--you start looking at the larger motive and chain of command issues. If Zarqawi didn't exist--or is not who they have said he was--how was the operation to fabricate a bogey man and his death done, and by whom? Were lower levels of command in the dark? Was it an entirely black operation?

I'm tending toward 9.5, at this point--given the entire arc of the Zarqawi story, starting with their early allegation--pre-invasion--that Zarqawi was "in Iraq" which turned out to be in Kurd territory--that is, in a US controlled area of pre-invasion Iraq. Their claim was that Zarqawi being "in Iraq" meant Saddam was in cahoots with Al Q; but it's far more likely that the Bush junta PUT Zarqawi into Kurd territory, armed him, funded him, and moved their asset into Baghdad after the invasion.* (Could THIS be what Valerie Plame objected to, and why they took HER out--why they outed her and entirely disabled her counter-proliferation network?) (It does seem to have been a conflict between those in the CIA who saw their job as preventing war vs. Bushites who saw their job as manufacturing it.)

The fabrication scenario is quite a plausible one, I think--and should be kept in mind as the details are reviewed. But "chain of command" should also be kept in mind, because this is where things can get really confusing. For instance, US commanders in Iraq may be telling the truth as they see it, about taking Zarqawi out, but are covering up dirty details like lots of civilian deaths. Or, high level may know Zarqawi was a bogey man (if he was); lower level may not.

-----

*(There is a backstory that's been nagging my mind for some time, and it involves Nicholas Berg, whom Zarqawi supposedly beheaded on tape after the Abu Ghraib torture photos started coming out--six months prior to the 2004 election. News stories at the time revealed that Nicholas Berg's email account and password had been in Zacharias Moussaoui's computer--the computer than FBI agent Coleen Rowley had sought to open just before 9/11. (FBI in DC denied her a FISA warrant.) After 9/11, when the FBI finally did get into the computer, they found this evidence of a connection between Nicholas Berg and Moussaoui. They interviewed Berg, and apparently were satisfied with his story that he met Moussaoui by accident on a bus, and loaned his computer to Moussaoui on the bus. Later, Berg was permitted to enter Iraq and was allowed to wander around looking for business for his small telecom company, during the Fallujah uprising. Berg was picked up and held by US forces for 10 days. His parents petitioned Donald Rumsfeld for his release. Iraq police at the time denied having any part in Berg's arrest. After 10 days in US custody, Berg was released onto the street in the middle of the Falluja uprising, and was soon reportedly grabbed by Zarqawi and beheaded in the famous video. I've been wondering ever since who Zarqawi really is/was--and/or, was the person in the video really Zarqawi? And also, who was Nicholas Berg? Was he someone's operative? Good? Bad? Inadvertent? Was he more than a simple innocent business man? Was he involved in some cloak and dagger op? Does he have any connection to the Abu Ghraib torture revelations? Was he some sort of expendable asset (or an asset who became expendable, or a potential whistleblower, or a patsy of some kind)? Also, given his known connection to Moussoui--inadvertent or not--how could he have been permitted to enter war-torn/occupied Iraq in the first place? The Nicholas Berg story--like the story of Zarqawi's death--FEELS like a facade, a foreground narrative, hiding something else. And BOTH stories--the foreground narratives--very conveniently serve Bush junta political/propaganda needs.)

[shadowknows69]

40. They're syaing that because they know

people are finding it hard to believe there was enough left of him for that picture.