BREAKING NEWS: Al-Zarqawi dead

[Brent88]

U.S. Special Forces Operation... MSNBC.

Major news!

[theshark8777]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed in a coalition airstrike near Baquba, jubilant U.S. and Iraqi authorities announced Thursday.

The 3-year-old insurgency has "lost its leader," Gen. George Casey, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, told reporters.

Details are still emerging of the operation against the self-proclaimed leader of al Qaeda in Iraq who pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

But the killing of al-Zarqawi, who had a $25 million bounty on his head, is a major coup for the embattled coalition forces.

"Today is a good day," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told a news conference soon after cheers and applause broke out when Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced: "Zarqawi has been killed."

Khalilzad called al-Zarqawi "the godfather of sectarian killing and terror in Iraq" -- and said the death "marks a great success for Iraq and the global war on terror."

"His organization has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq and abroad."

The 39-year-old Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi was accused of terrorist links before the Iraq war and soon led the insurgency after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Multiple attempts have been made to capture or kill him and he was held briefly by Iraqi security forces in 2004 but was released because no one knew who he was.

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called al-Zarqawi's death "a very important moment in Iraq. A blow for al Qaeda in Iraq is a blow for al Qaeda everywhere."
Insider tips

Casey said al-Zarqawi and a key lieutenant, spiritual adviser Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, were at an isolated safe house outside Baquba at 6:15 p.m. (10:15 a.m. ET) on Wednesday.

"Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting approximately eight kilometers north of Baquba when the airstrike was launched," he said.

Baquba is a volatile area northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province, a mixed Shiite-Sunni jurisdiction. There have been many roadside bombings and shootings throughout the province and within the week, severed heads were found in fruit boxes there.

"Iraqi police were first on the scene after the air strike, and elements of Multi-National Division North, arrived shortly thereafter," Casey said. "We have been able to identify al-Zarqawi by fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars."

In addition to Zarqawi and the spiritual adviser, seven others died in the attack.

Casey wouldn't provide many details about the action but said that "all of these operations are the result of a long, painstaking process where tips and intelligence are received, processed and checked out."

This particular operation had been in the works for a couple of weeks, leading to the location of the house in a wooded area and the meeting, he said.

Al-Maliki indicated that the strike on al-Zarqawi was the "result of cooperation" with ordinary Iraqis, saying that authorities many times have asked the citizenry to provide information.

"This is a message to all those who take violence as a path."

Khalilzad said the demise of al-Zarqawi won't end the violence in Iraq, but it is "an important step in the right direction."

[D-Dey]

So now it's for real. GOOD! Too bad there are other terrorists in Iraq who can still replace him.

[KissMyGrits]

I've been saying that we would get him!! It was just a matter of time!! Just like it is only a matter of time until we get Osama!!

The military has alot to celebrate!! Woo-hoo!! Go get em boys!! You make us proud!!

[T_ID]

Good riddance, and a 'clean' operation for change.

[Ireneparalegal]

Thank Goodness and Good Riddance.

[Bobby F.]

Good riddance, and a 'clean' operation for change.

Typical lib. Just had to get in a shot.:rolleyes:

Way ta go military!! Keep on doing what you're doing! Don't listen to anything those bleeding heart libs have to say. They have their heads so far up their arses that it's starting to cut of circulation!:D

[gilligan fanatic]

we owe a lot to Jordan for this, a lot of the info received about his location came from them. Al-Zargawi and his sneakers are going to hell.

[Janice]

This is great news! Bin Laden is next.

And T_ID, another typical shot at the U.S. military. I know you're just jealous that our military is so strong and powerful, and your military is....what's the word??....NOT. :D

[Brian Damage]

Good riddance, and a 'clean' operation for change.

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me that you are a little disappointed by the news? To be honest, who gives a ****? The news of the day is that a major leader in a terrorist orginization has been knocked out. It is a major victory for the allied forces.

[Janice]

I was just lurking over at democraticunderground.com, and there's a thread with almost 300 replies, and nobody's happy about this.

These people are sick. :rolleyes:

[Brian Damage]

I was just lurking over at democraticunderground.com, and there's a thread with almost 300 replies, and nobody's happy about this.

These people are sick. :rolleyes:

I really think deep down some liberals like to hear that some of our soldiers are getting hurt or killed. It is a justification for them that we shouldn't be in Iraq. When they hear a success story such as this, it upsets them because it weakens their argument.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Finally, he's dead. I thought it was another false alarm until they showed him dead.

[Janice]

I really think deep down some liberals like to hear that some of our soldiers are getting hurt or killed. It is a justification for them that we shouldn't be in Iraq. When they hear a success story such as this, it upsets them because it weakens their argument.
There are a ton of threads at DU now, and they are not happy campers. I haven't seen them this pissed since Bush won re-election.

[Fleet]

Good riddance, and a 'clean' operation for change.
One reason that there are 'unclean" operations is because the terrorists use Iraqi citizens as human shields.

[Fleet]

I was just lurking over at democraticunderground.com, and there's a thread with almost 300 replies, and nobody's happy about this.

These people are sick. :rolleyes:
They are practically crying over at the anti-American BBC. :crazy:

[Fleet]

Typical lib. Just had to get in a shot.:rolleyes:

Maybe he prefers "clean" operations, like when Clinton ordered that aspirin factory bombed. It was the wrong target, but at least it was a "clean" operation!

[theshark8777]

I'm glad he's gone, but lets see if it really makes a difference, or if someone else will just step in his spot.

[Fleet]

I'm glad he's gone, but lets see if it really makes a difference, or if someone else will just step in his spot.
From what I've read and heard, there are not many "leaders" as capable as Zarqawi was, so replacing him with someone comparable should be difficult.

[TJL]

:clap

Nice shooting boys.

;)

[T_ID]

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me that you are a little disappointed by the news? To be honest, who gives a ****? The news of the day is that a major leader in a terrorist orginization has been knocked out. It is a major victory for the allied forces.
What sounds uninterested? It's good news and I wrote so.

If only they could have eliminated him without screwing up several times in a row earlier. Earlier screwups where houses with innocent families were blown up in an airstrike while Al Zarqawi wasn't within a hundred miles are quite inexcusable.
Some people explain that, quite weird, as criticism, personal attacks even. But then again, if you don't care about innocent people dying, how can they keep a straight face when they mourn terror victims?

That is why I keep hammering on clean war with minimal casualties; without it, America is going to lose the war on terror.


Right now, with every dead insurgent, ten more rise up. Not even all of them foreign terrorists, some of them are normal people that are aren't usually agressive, that don't normally hate Americans, however, they are just pissed that they're being blown up, that their families are being blown up, that there's no jobs, no electricity, no security.

Spare me all the militaristic crap, but if you'd disagree with me on the above: how *will* the war on terror be won if all the principles of civilisation are flying out of the window and there's no military succes possible?

[Bobby F.]

What sounds uninterested? It's good news and I wrote so.

If only they could have eliminated him without screwing up several times in a row earlier. Earlier screwups where houses with innocent families were blown up in an airstrike while Al Zarqawi wasn't within a hundred miles are quite inexcusable.
Some people explain that, quite weird, as criticism, personal attacks even. But then again, if you don't care about innocent people dying, how can they keep a straight face when they mourn terror victims?

That is why I keep hammering on clean war with minimal casualties; without it, America is going to lose the war on terror.


Right now, with every dead insurgent, ten more rise up. Not even all of them foreign terrorists, some of them are normal people that are aren't usually agressive, that don't normally hate Americans, however, they are just pissed that they're being blown up, that their families are being blown up, that there's no jobs, no electricity, no security.

Spare me all the militaristic crap, but if you'd disagree with me on the above: how *will* the war on terror be won if all the principles of civilisation are flying out of the window and there's no military succes possible?

"It's a good thing but.....":rolleyes: Typical.

[gilligan fanatic]

What sounds uninterested? It's good news and I wrote so.

If only they could have eliminated him without screwing up several times in a row earlier. Earlier screwups where houses with innocent families were blown up in an airstrike while Al Zarqawi wasn't within a hundred miles are quite inexcusable.
Some people explain that, quite weird, as criticism, personal attacks even. But then again, if you don't care about innocent people dying, how can they keep a straight face when they mourn terror victims?

That is why I keep hammering on clean war with minimal casualties; without it, America is going to lose the war on terror.


Right now, with every dead insurgent, ten more rise up. Not even all of them foreign terrorists, some of them are normal people that are aren't usually agressive, that don't normally hate Americans, however, they are just pissed that they're being blown up, that their families are being blown up, that there's no jobs, no electricity, no security.

Spare me all the militaristic crap, but if you'd disagree with me on the above: how *will* the war on terror be won if all the principles of civilisation are flying out of the window and there's no military succes possible?

how are we suppose to get him if we don't try. Do you want us to go inside the buildings and warn him and everyone else we are coming and announce it to everyone? In earlier times he had just left, its not like we were bombing randomly, and once again if we didn't;t try you would say were aren't doing anything so what do you want?

[T_ID]

"It's a good thing but.....":rolleyes: Typical.
Every advantage has a disadvantage. It's like physics. Doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is true. :)
how are we suppose to get him if we don't try. Do you want us to go inside the buildings and warn him and everyone else we are coming and announce it to everyone? In earlier times he had just left, its not like we were bombing randomly, and once again if we didn't;t try you would say were aren't doing anything so what do you want?Acurate (and doublechecked) intelligence helps a lot. Deploying precision ground troops rapidly also causes far less collatoral damage then just tossing a bomb. Any higher ranking military official can explain the strategic details of that. :)

For instance, with the death of Zarqawi, during the bombing of the house, five others died, including a woman and a child. That could have been avoided, and that's what I meant with clean warfare. The US troops can really pad themselves on the back if they had managed to arrest or kill Al Zarqawi without any further loss of life, all other results are 2nd best compared to that.

Besides: What do you think will happen to those dead, even if just in the propaganda of insurgents? Another five martyrs have been created, two of which whose deaths will cause outrage among Iraqi's. If two people decide to become insurgents because of this, Al Zarqawi's elimination was already a failure in strategic terms.

And that's exactly the problem with the way the civil war in Iraq is going, there's a spiral of violence going on that must be stopped if the country is going to be held together, and the way US troops act in Iraq right now is far from optimal.


If that means that some folks are going to think it's weird that I'm not dancing or doing cartwheels over Al Zarqawi's death, so be it, I prefer to look at larger pictures.

[D-Dey]

They are practically crying over at the anti-American BBC. :crazy:


Let me guess; The Jihadists in London, and the Marxists and Watermelons are the ones spilling all the tears.

[Tuesday Weld]

I was just lurking over at democraticunderground.com, and there's a thread with almost 300 replies, and nobody's happy about this.

These people are sick. :rolleyes:

Oh geez, how could they not be happy? ohno:

[Bobby F.]

For instance, with the death of Zarqawi, during the bombing of the house, five others died, including a woman and a child. That could have been avoided, and that's what I meant with clean warfare. The US troops can really pad themselves on the back if they had managed to arrest or kill Al Zarqawi without any further loss of life, all other results are 2nd best compared to that.

.

Colateral damage. Can't be avoided. They were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. And more than likely they were some of his followers. Don't want to be linked to a terrorist, don't hang around them.

[TJL]

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt
By Amy ***an
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 8, 2006


4:09 p.m.
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out.
"We're there for all the wrong reasons," Mr. Kucinich said.
Officially, Democratic leaders reacted positively to the news and praised the troops that successfully targeted al Qaeda's leader in Iraq with 500-pound bombs at his safe house 30 miles from Baghdad.
"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
President Bush said that yesterday's killing of the 39-year-old Jordanian-born terrorist offers an opportunity to "turn the tide" in the war and that Tuesday he will discuss with Iraqi leaders "how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq."
A senior White House official cautioned that Mr. Bush was not hinting at possible early reductions in U.S. troops there, according to Reuters news agency.
Meanwhile, Democrats sprinkled caveats throughout their praise.
"That is good news; he was a dreadful, vicious person," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat. Mr. Conrad added that he hopes the military can get Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, another top al Qaeda leader.
"They're even more important," he said.
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan Democrat, said it was good news but added, "I think we have a long way to go."
Republicans called Zarqawi's death a positive step and thanked Iraqi citizens for standing up to a threat against their nascent Democracy.
"I am more optimistic than ever that a free and stable Iraq can be achieved," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

[Dr. John Becker]

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt
By Amy ***an
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 8, 2006


4:09 p.m.
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out.
"We're there for all the wrong reasons," Mr. Kucinich said.
Officially, Democratic leaders reacted positively to the news and praised the troops that successfully targeted al Qaeda's leader in Iraq with 500-pound bombs at his safe house 30 miles from Baghdad.
"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
President Bush said that yesterday's killing of the 39-year-old Jordanian-born terrorist offers an opportunity to "turn the tide" in the war and that Tuesday he will discuss with Iraqi leaders "how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq."
A senior White House official cautioned that Mr. Bush was not hinting at possible early reductions in U.S. troops there, according to Reuters news agency.
Meanwhile, Democrats sprinkled caveats throughout their praise.
"That is good news; he was a dreadful, vicious person," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat. Mr. Conrad added that he hopes the military can get Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, another top al Qaeda leader.
"They're even more important," he said.
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan Democrat, said it was good news but added, "I think we have a long way to go."
Republicans called Zarqawi's death a positive step and thanked Iraqi citizens for standing up to a threat against their nascent Democracy.
"I am more optimistic than ever that a free and stable Iraq can be achieved," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.


And Democrats wonder why they keep losing elections. :lol:

[Dr. John Becker]

Just out of curiousity, what country do you live in T_ID?

[T_ID]

I was just lurking over at democraticunderground.com, and there's a thread with almost 300 replies, and nobody's happy about this.

These people are sick. :rolleyes:
Aha, really? Just quoting a few replies on that forum:
(question was 'is Al Zarqawi really dead now) "I certainly hope so"
"whatever he is, if true I am glad he is gone"
"Hopefully it means he's rotting in hell."
"yaaaHOO! We Finally Kilt Us A Terr'rist!"
"*DING! DONG!* THE PHANTOM IS DEAD! The War Was Worth it!"

Otherwise just a great deal of scepticism there around Zarqawi truly being blown to smithereens. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a high ranking terrorist supposed to be dead turns up alive.

[gilligan fanatic]

Aha, really? Just quoting a few replies on that forum:
(question was 'is Al Zarqawi really dead now) "I certainly hope so"
"whatever he is, if true I am glad he is gone"
"Hopefully it means he's rotting in hell."
"yaaaHOO! We Finally Kilt Us A Terr'rist!"
"*DING! DONG!* THE PHANTOM IS DEAD! The War Was Worth it!"

Otherwise just a great deal of scepticism there around Zarqawi truly being blown to smithereens. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a high ranking terrorist supposed to be dead turns up alive.

you haven't seen the pictures?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Dead.jpg
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060608/481/c588077073e8442a972906d49ed1ce80&g=events/wl/042506alzarqawi;_ylt=Alc0ZgFp.K17s58LZdorWvoUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-

[T_ID]

you haven't seen the pictures?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Dead.jpg
Off course I have, otherwise I'd be among the sceptics too.

However, it's little more than natural to wait a moment or two before screaming out in joy if just one news source reports something. It's happened before that those were wrong and I think the members of that democraticunderground site are more aware that Al Zarqawi's death would mean little to the civil war and is mostly symbolic. I was just adjusting the view Janice sketched of the situation, namely the suggestion that the members of that forum were unhappy about Al Zarqawi's death.

[Janice]

Aha, really? Just quoting a few replies on that forum:
(question was 'is Al Zarqawi really dead now) "I certainly hope so"
"whatever he is, if true I am glad he is gone"
"Hopefully it means he's rotting in hell."
"yaaaHOO! We Finally Kilt Us A Terr'rist!"
"*DING! DONG!* THE PHANTOM IS DEAD! The War Was Worth it!"

Otherwise just a great deal of scepticism there around Zarqawi truly being blown to smithereens. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a high ranking terrorist supposed to be dead turns up alive.
They're a bunch of conspiracy theorist Moonbats over there.

You had to really dig for those remarks at the DUmp. I read thread after thread today, and it one big bash Bush fest. Those last two quotes you posted are the war, if you didn't get that.

The DailyKos.com, the other lefty site, was in meltdown mode today too. The far Left hates this. Anything that reflects poorly on Bush, they love. Anything that reflects good on Bush, they hate.

[GeorgeWBushGOP]

Edit: No name calling.

THe same SCUMBAGS who compare the President and Vice President to this damn MONSTER!!

Ever see the video? Huh? I know this is horrible news for you moonbat jerks!!! Thank GOd he is dead as you hate america bastards would make sure he was treated humanely...And question ANY marine that had to guard him as the bad guy!!!


I wrongly figured that I had seen enough bad stuff first hand in my life that I would handle that video without much response...

Man, I was dead wrong. I have seen people die first hand before, but I never had to see them literally fight for their lives, or hear the screams, struggling, etc. I said it before, and I'll say it again...even if you have a chance to see the videos...don't.

Say a little prayer for the victim and recognize that anyone that can forcibly decapitate a screaming, squirming human is nothing more than an animal.

In fact, as I think about it...piss on this f**ker's martyrdom...I hope his soul stays stuck in his rotting stinky ass corpse for eternity

[Jo_Luvs_Ketchup]

I don't really know who this guy is but when my mom told me she said she doesn't believe he's really dead.

[Tuesday Weld]

They're a bunch of conspiracy theorist Moonbats over there.



Moonbats, that's a funny term. :lol:

[Shine]

I don't really know who this guy is but when my mom told me she said she doesn't believe he's really dead.


My dad has a friend who claims he saw Hitler at a Taco Bell in 1986. So I guess anything is possible. :lol:

[gilligan fanatic]

I don't really know who this guy is but when my mom told me she said she doesn't believe he's really dead.

dental records don't lie, that bastard is dead. And how do you not know the second most wanted man in the world?

[Jo_Luvs_Ketchup]

dental records don't lie, that bastard is dead. And how do you not know the second most wanted man in the world?
Uh pretty easy apparently.:lol:

[Shine]

And how do you not know the second most wanted man in the world?


I thought that was George Bush. :lol:

[theshark8777]

dental records don't lie, that bastard is dead. And how do you not know the second most wanted man in the world?.

Al-Zarqawi's body was taken to a secure location, visually identified by "scars and tattoos consistent with what had been reported and what we knew about him," and by fingerprints, Caldwell said. "We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house. It was 100 percent identification."

Didn't see anything about dental records.

[Jo_Luvs_Ketchup]

I thought that was George Bush. :lol:
:lol:



Oooooh there's gonna be troublllllle.

[Shine]

:lol:



Oooooh there's gonna be troublllllle.
:lol:

[gilligan fanatic]

.

Al-Zarqawi's body was taken to a secure location, visually identified by "scars and tattoos consistent with what had been reported and what we knew about him," and by fingerprints, Caldwell said. "We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house. It was 100 percent identification."

Didn't see anything about dental records.

"Zarqawi's body has been positively identified through dental records, fingerprints and facial recognition technology."

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/national/article.aspx?storyid=33009

[gilligan fanatic]

I thought that was George Bush. :lol:

:rolleyes: I am not even going to comment to that unnecessary post

[Shine]

:rolleyes: I am not even going to comment to that unnecessary post


It was a joke. Relax.

[gilligan fanatic]

It was a joke. Relax.

still unnecessary

[theshark8777]

That joke is unnescessary, but this name calling post is okay :rolleyes: You liberals are SCUMBAGS!!

THe same SCUMBAGS who compare the President and Vice President to this damn MONSTER!!

Ever see the video? Huh? I know this is horrible news for you moonbat jerks!!! Thank GOd he is dead as you hate america bastards would make sure he was treated humanely...And question ANY marine that had to guard him as the bad guy!!!


I wrongly figured that I had seen enough bad stuff first hand in my life that I would handle that video without much response...


Man, I was dead wrong. I have seen people die first hand before, but I never had to see them literally fight for their lives, or hear the screams, struggling, etc. I said it before, and I'll say it again...even if you have a chance to see the videos...don't.

Say a little prayer for the victim and recognize that anyone that can forcibly decapitate a screaming, squirming human is nothing more than an animal.

In fact, as I think about it...piss on this f**ker's martyrdom...I hope his soul stays stuck in his rotting stinky ass corpse for eternity

[Shine]

That joke is unnescessary, but this name calling post is okay :rolleyes:


Good point.

[Yooch]

I was just lurking over at democraticunderground.com, and there's a thread with almost 300 replies, and nobody's happy about this.

These people are sick. :rolleyes:

I'm a Democrat and thrilled as hell we got 'im; made my friggin day. I've enjoyed watching the footage of it over and over on the news.

[RWCTV]

I was excited when I read the news. I then thought of what it would be like if we had listened to the Democrat's call for withdrawal. I posted an article at my website addressing this milestone in the War on Terror.

Please read.....
A Victory for Bush: Zarqawi Killed

http://makingsense.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=1149833202

[ABlairican Pie]

I was excited when I read the news. I then thought of what it would be like if we had listened to the Democrat's call for withdrawal. I posted an article at my website addressing this milestone in the War on Terror.

Please read.....
A Victory for Bush: Zarqawi Killed

http://makingsense.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=1149833202Yep, the one great thing is that the death of al-Zarqawi will spike Bush's popularity in the polls. :ohno: "See, people, the war wasn't a TOTAL waste!! Not only did we catch Saddam in a spider hole, but we killed #2 bad guy to Osama!! Was the deaths of between 30,000 to over 100,000 Iraqis and $286,879,908,291
worth it? You bet!!"

"And people call the Iraq futile!":crazy:

[D-Dey]

Yep, the one great thing is that the death of al-Zarqawi will spike Bush's popularity in the polls. :ohno: "See, people, the war wasn't a TOTAL waste!! Not only did we catch Saddam in a spider hole, but we killed #2 bad guy to Osama!! Was the deaths of between 30,000 to over 100,000 Iraqis and $286,879,908,291
worth it? You bet!!"

"And people call the Iraq futile!":crazy:

Of course, the majority of deaths blamed on the US Government are actually caused by the various insurgents that the left likes to lionize as "the Iraqi Resistance," but hey, why deal with facts?

[T_ID]

Of course, the majority of deaths blamed on the US Government are actually caused by the various insurgents that the left likes to lionize as "the Iraqi Resistance," but hey, why deal with facts?
Of course they are blamed on the US military.

After all, it was their job to keep insurgents at bay. They failed.

[Bobby F.]

Of course they are blamed on the US military.

After all, it was their job to keep insurgents at bay. They failed.

I'm happy to hear that you, at least at one point, had so much faith in our ability to completely stop any attacks made by terrorist. :rolleyes:

That has got to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made. Anyone who honest believes that we were capable of stopping all of the attacks is insane. Our job was to go over, remove an evil dictatorship, help set-up a new government, help setup the police forces, the military, utilities....along with combating the terrorists. I'd say we're doing pretty good. Course the way the news reports it, it's a total cluster***. We are slowly turning military operations over to the Iraqis and we are slowly moving to a support role. Sooner or later that country has got to stand on it own and they are slowly doing it.

[MsOrange]

dental records don't lie, that bastard is dead. And how do you not know the second most wanted man in the world?
I didn't

[gilligan fanatic]

I didn't

you don't have to watch much news at all. He is in it a lot. Just a few weeks ago he issued a new video. How could you not have heard about it? Or all the other stuff he has done. I can understand you not knowing one of his aides, but you don't even have to watch the news to know him.

Look at all this

The following is a list of attacks and kidnappings claimed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers.

2005:
* Dec. 27: Volley of rockets fired from southern Lebanon into Israel.

* Nov. 9: Triple homicide bombing against hotels in Amman, Jordan, killing 60.

* Aug. 19: Rocket attack in the Jordanian port city of Aqaba, killing Jordanian soldier. One Katyusha rocket lands in neighboring Israel — causing no casualties — and another misses a U.S. Navy ship docked at Aqaba.

* May 7: Two explosives-laden cars plow into an American security company convoy in Baghdad, killing at least 22 people — including two Americans.

* Feb. 28: Car bomber strikes crowd of police and Iraqi National Guard recruits in the southern city of Hillah, killing 125 people.

2004:
* Dec. 19: Car bombs tear through funeral procession in Najaf and main bus station in nearby Karbala, killing at least 60 in the Shiite holy cities.

* Oct. 30: Body of hostage Shosei Koda, 24, of Japan, is found decapitated in Baghdad, his body wrapped in an American flag.

* Sept. 30: Bombings in Baghdad kill 35 children and seven adults as U.S. troops hand out candy at the inauguration of a sewage treatment plant. Zarqawi's group claims responsibility for attacks that day, but it is unclear if these include the explosions that killed the children.

* Sept. 16: British engineer Kenneth Bigley, and U.S. engineers Jack Hensley and Eugene "Jack" Armstrong kidnapped in Baghdad. By Oct. 10, 2004, all three men have been confirmed beheaded.

* Sept. 14: Car bomb rips through a busy market near a Baghdad police headquarters where Iraqis are waiting to apply for jobs, killing 47.

* Sept. 13: Video purportedly from Al Qaeda in Iraq shows Durmus Kumdereli, a Turkish truck driver, being beheaded.

* Aug. 2: Video from followers of Zarqawi showing shooting death of hostage Murat Yuce of Turkey.

* June 29: Bulgarian truck drivers Georgi Lazov, 30, and Ivaylo Kepov, 32, are kidnapped. Zarqawi's followers suspected of decapitating both men.

* June 22: Kidnappers behead South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il; Al-Jazeera television says the killing was carried out by Zarqawi's group.

* June 14: Car bomb attack on a vehicle convoy in Baghdad kills 13, including three General Electric employees.

* May 18: Car bomb assassinates Iraqi Governing Council president Abdel-Zahraa Othman.

* May 11: Kidnapped American businessman Nicholas Berg is beheaded while being videotaped, and the voice of the knife-wielder is identified as Zarqawi's.

* March 2: Coordinated blasts from homicide bombers, mortars and planted explosives strike Shiite Muslim shrines in Karbala and Baghdad, killing at least 181. U.S. and Iraqi officials link the attacks to Zarqawi.

2003:
* Aug. 29: Car bomb in Najaf kills more than 85 people, including Ayatollah Mohammad Baqr al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

* Aug. 19: Truck bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad kills 23, including top U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

2002:
Oct. 28: Laurence Foley, a diplomat and administrator of U.S. aid programs in Jordan, is gunned down outside his home in Amman.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198661,00.html

[Old Hag]

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Cheers to the military.

[T_ID]

Our job was to go over, remove an evil dictatorship, help set-up a new government, help setup the police forces, the military, utilities....First you deny that the US is responsible for making Iraq safe, and then you say that it is exactly their task. You're contradicting yourself here, which is it they should do?

heck, and did you forget why Bush said the military was going down there? Probably, so I will remind you: he said it was to stop Saddam for using weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about removing a dictatorship, no humanitarian stuff.

[Fleet]

heck, and did you forget why Bush said the military was going down there? Probably, so I will remind you: he said it was to stop Saddam for using weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about removing a dictatorship, no humanitarian stuff.
Wrong. Congress, back in 1998, voted for regime change in Iraq.
Bush did not say WMD was the only reason for invading Iraq:

[Janice]

Was anyone as happy as me to hear that Al-Zarqawi was alive for a short period of time? This means he knew the U.S. got him.

[Bobby F.]

First you deny that the US is responsible for making Iraq safe, and then you say that it is exactly their task. You're contradicting yourself here, which is it they should do?



I did? Show me. Or is this your same old act about putting words into peoples mouths.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Wrong. Congress, back in 1998, voted for regime change in Iraq.
How many times must I say that a sense of congress resolution is not a declaration of war and does absolutely nothing. You can't blame anyone else but Bush for going to war.

Bush did not say WMD was the only reason for invading Iraq:Here comes the list again. WMD was mentioned more times than anything else, so it was the main reason.

[Bobby F.]

How many times must I say that a sense of congress resolution is not a declaration of war and does absolutely nothing. You can't blame anyone else but Bush for going to war.

Here comes the list again. WMD was mentioned more times than anything else, so it was the main reason.

Whether it was the main reason or not, it was not the only reason. Show the list again Fleet. It will sink in one day.:crazy:

[Dr. John Becker]

Check mate for Bobby and Fleet!

[Fleet]

Whether it was the main reason or not, it was not the only reason. Show the list again Fleet. It will sink in one day.:crazy:
Good idea!!!

[Fleet]

...

[Fleet]

How many times must I say that a sense of congress resolution is not a declaration of war and does absolutely nothing. You can't blame anyone else but Bush for going to war.

Here comes the list again. WMD was mentioned more times than anything else, so it was the main reason.
Not only did Congress pass the bill in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq, they also voted to invade Iraq in 2003. You "forgot" that little fact. I will also point out that Clinton sent troops into several foreign countries *without* Congressional approval.

No, WMD was ONE reason.
If you were to go back and watch or listen to Bush's speeches before the invasion, you will discover that he mentioned Iraq's WMD LESS often than he mentioned liberating Iraq.

[Brent88]

Was anyone as happy as me to hear that Al-Zarqawi was alive for a short period of time? This means he knew the U.S. got him.

Yes, and I hope those few minutes that he was alive he was in extreme pain. :mad: :angryfire

[Tuesday Weld]

Yes, and I hope those few minutes that he was alive he was in extreme pain. :mad: :angryfire

So do I.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Not only did Congress pass the bill in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq, they also voted to invade Iraq in 2003. You "forgot" that little fact. I will also point out that Clinton sent troops into several foreign countries *without* Congressional approval.You obviously fail to understand that the resolution was not a declaration of war and did not in anyway specify any actions that should be taken in Iraq. You seem to want to say that Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq war, when it was him that suggested the invasion.

No, WMD was ONE reason.
If you were to go back and watch or listen to Bush's speeches before the invasion, you will discover that he mentioned Iraq's WMD LESS often than he mentioned liberating Iraq.It was the main reason, the one used more times than any other.

[Bobby F.]

It was the main reason, the one used more times than any other.


Can you show any proof or documentation that has WMD as the main reason for going in? Fleet has shown that it's not. Or are you only capable of just reciting the democrates talking points.....:rolleyes:

[Fleet]

You obviously fail to understand that the resolution was not a declaration of war and did not in anyway specify any actions that should be taken in Iraq. You seem to want to say that Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq war, when it was him that suggested the invasion.

It was the main reason, the one used more times than any other.
And you obviously fail to understand that Congress did vote to invade Iraq in 2003. It was not a resolution... it was a vote on whether or not to use military action to remove Saddam and liberate Iraq. And it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not "Operation Destroy Iraq's WMD."

I don't recall Bush ever saying that WMD was the main reason. Again, go back and listen to or watch his speeches in early 2003. He mentioned liberating Iraq more than he mentioned WMD. Also go over the quotes by Democrats saying exactly the same thing Bush did. The fact is that almost everybody thought Saddam still had WMD (which I still believe... I think he smuggled them out of Iraq)... U.S., British, Russian, U.N., Chinese intelligence, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, Ted Kennedy... even Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD!

[Fleet]

Yes, and I hope those few minutes that he was alive he was in extreme pain. :mad: :angryfire
And I hope he knew that it was U.S. bombs which ended his evil life.

[James"Thunder"Early]

And you obviously fail to understand that Congress did vote to invade Iraq in 2003. It was not a resolution... it was a vote on whether or not to use military action to remove Saddam and liberate Iraq. And it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not "Operation Destroy Iraq's WMD."Now you are trying to twist things around, I didn't say the 2003 vote was a resolution, I said the 1998 one was. You can give it whatever names you want, it is still a war. Congress only voted at Bush's request in 2003.

I don't recall Bush ever saying that WMD was the main reason. Again, go back and listen to or watch his speeches in early 2003. He mentioned liberating Iraq more than he mentioned WMD. Also go over the quotes by Democrats saying exactly the same thing Bush did. The fact is that almost everybody thought Saddam still had WMD (which I still believe... I think he smuggled them out of Iraq)... U.S., British, Russian, U.N., Chinese intelligence, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, Ted Kennedy... even Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD!Yeah, right, WMD was never even a reason, we both no that's not true. All he talked about was WMDs, over and over. I don't care what Democrats said, there were no WMD period.

[Fleet]

Now you are trying to twist things around, I didn't say the 2003 vote was a resolution, I said the 1998 one was. You can give it whatever names you want, it is still a war. Congress only voted at Bush's request in 2003.

Yeah, right, WMD was never even a reason, we both no that's not true. All he talked about was WMDs, over and over. I don't care what Democrats said, there were no WMD period.
Lol. Since when does Congress (especially the liberals in Congress) vote the way Bush wants? :lol: And why didn't John Kerry vote for it?
Yes, it's still a war. And for good reason. Iraq harbored, funded and supported terrorism. Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002, BEFORE the U.S. invaded (so much for the stupid myth about Iraq having no ties to al Qaeda!).

You show me links in which Bush talked about WMD "over and over." Thanks to the last president, with his stupid "Torricelli Principle," we didn't have sufficient intelligence to know what Saddam actually had. But remember... there were banned weapons found in Iraq. Also remember that Saddam himself at any time could have prevented the invasion had he cooperated. He didn't and paid the price.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Lol. Since when does Congress (especially the liberals in Congress) vote the way Bush wants? :lol: And why didn't John Kerry vote for it?I said he's the one that wanted the vote, I didn't say he told them how to vote. John Kerry and a lot of others were duped by the false information presented.


Yes, it's still a war. And for good reason. Iraq harbored, funded and supported terrorism. Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002, BEFORE the U.S. invaded (so much for the stupid myth about Iraq having no ties to al Qaeda!).It's not a myth, it's been proven by the 9/11 comission and other sources.

You show me links in which Bush talked about WMD "over and over." Thanks to the last president, with his stupid "Torricelli Principle," we didn't have sufficient intelligence to know what Saddam actually had. But remember... there were banned weapons found in Iraq. Also remember that Saddam himself at any time could have prevented the invasion had he cooperated. He didn't and paid the price.If you never heard Bush mention WMDs, then you weren't paying attention. You can't blame Clinton for Bush going to war on false information.

[T_ID]

Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002, BEFORE the U.S. invaded (so much for the stupid myth about Iraq having no ties to al Qaeda!).You seem to be forgetting Zarqawi only got involved with Al Qaida when the two organisations found they were fighting Americans together, only then as rivals. By recognizing Al Zarqawi Al Qaida prevented a competition under insurgents.

You also seem to be forgetting that in Saddam's Iraq, there was no Al Qaida activity so terrorists can not have been a motive for the invasion.

we didn't have sufficient intelligence to know what Saddam actually had.So you do agree that there was no evidence of those WMD's. Good to see us agreeing on something for a change.

But remember... there were banned weapons found in Iraq.Those being? Please remember not to make me fall of my chair with laughter by quoting the depleted uranium round alledgy found somewhere and claim it's a nuclear weapon when you try to name examples.

Also remember that Saddam himself at any time could have prevented the invasion had he cooperated. He didn't and paid the price.Ah, so he should have destroyed weapons he didn't have?

No, he couldn't, so neither could he prevent Bush from going to avenge what they did to papa. There were no morals behind the invasion of Iraq. Even if Bush' true motives remain shrouded for a large part, they are highly questionable and impossible to justify.


Iraq lies in ruins, tearing itself up in civil war, thousands of US troops are dead, the costs of the war running into the billions...

What *has* improved? Halliburton got rich and Saddam is getting a trial.

Worth it? Most certainly not.

[D-Dey]

You seem to be forgetting Zarqawi only got involved with Al Qaida when the two organisations found they were fighting Americans together, only then as rivals. By recognizing Al Zarqawi Al Qaida prevented a competition under insurgents.

You also seem to be forgetting that in Saddam's Iraq, there was no Al Qaida activity so terrorists can not have been a motive for the invasion.

On the contrary. Zaraqwi united these factions in December 2001, when Saddam was still in power. Plus, Saddam supported both secular and islamic terrorists alike, so terrorism is a motive for invasion.


So you do agree that there was no evidence of those WMD's. Good to see us agreeing on something for a change.

Those being? Please remember not to make me fall of my chair with laughter by quoting the depleted uranium round alledgy found somewhere and claim it's a nuclear weapon when you try to name examples.
Well, I don't know about Fleet and Bobby F., but I'm going to use the UN's own cluster report for starters. Hope you have Adobe, because this is a PDF File:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf

I'm also going to add this BBC Report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm


Ah, so he should have destroyed weapons he didn't have?

No, he couldn't, so neither could he prevent Bush from going to avenge what they did to papa.

Nah, he just gave them away to people like Zarqawi:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-17-jordan-terrorism_x.htm


Iraq lies in ruins, tearing itself up in civil war, thousands of US troops are dead, the costs of the war running into the billions...
That's becasue the insurgents are the ones plunging Iraq into civil war in the first place. If it's not Ansar al-Islam, it's the Iranian backed Mehdi Army or the Saddam-friendly "Return Party."


What *has* improved? Halliburton got rich and Saddam is getting a trial.

Worth it? Most certainly not.

Halliburton got rich off of Clinton stopping Serbia's genocide in the Balkans too.