Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
someone please incorporate this news item into this article. Kingturtle 03:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
and this one Rhymeless 05:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Excised info
I removed the following info since it doesn't seem to relate strongly to Zarqawi. Perhaps it could be incorporated into another article? Quadell (talk) 17:48, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Polls of the US public have shown that up to 80% have stated a belief that Saddam Hussein actually planned or caused the 9/11 attacks. The role of these two individuals thus takes on an almost mythic importance. However, the Bush administration consistently denies that it created this impression in the public:
In an interview in September 2003, Bush said
- "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th... What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
- "And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Others counter that bin Laden and Saddam did not get along even against a common prime enemy, as the secular, socialist Arab nationalism of Saddam's Baath Party was largely incompatible with bin Laden's Islamism.[1] One of the audio tapes purported to be of bin Laden called for the overthrow of Saddam and his "secular, socialist, infidel" government, [2] and Britain's defense intelligence staff asserted that any fledgling relationship foundered on ideological differences.[3] The CIA had great difficulty backing up Bush's claims.[4] FBI investigators looking for a link said "we just don't think it's there."[5] Israel denied the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection (while asserting the connection between Iraq and Palestinian terrorism). [6]
Politrix links
There are three new Politrix links in the External links section. I'm not sure they belong here -- especially the "Beheading a Day Keeps the Bad News Away" link. It's an interesting article, but I don't think it gives primary info about Zarqawi. The same for the other links, only less so. Quadell (talk) 18:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
I'm now removing the Politrix links. If you think they belong, tell us why here. Quadell (talk) 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Juan Cole (American Middle East expert and Prof of History) quotes a 2003 CBS report: "We have exclusive new details tonight on talks between the US and Iran, a nation the President said was part of an axis of evil. Iran can help the American fight against terrorism, but apparently they have named a price." NBC (Brown) adds, "These three, among the most wanted members of Al Qaeda. The alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq, [Abu Mussab al Zarqawi]. Bin Laden's third oldest son, [Sa'ad bin Laden], known to be planning new Al Qaeda operations. The Al Qaeda spokesman, [Suleiman abu Gaith], famous for introducing bin Laden in this videotape after 9/11. Many US officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key Al Qaeda operatives over to the US or their home countries -- for a price -- in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or the MEK. The MEK has been attacking Iran's Islamic government from Iraq and is now there under US military control."[7]
Polemic
An anonymous user informed us of the following. (I moved it down here, as it was inserted in the middle of a previous post of mine.) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:35, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
PREPARE FOR WHAT YOUR MAKER HAS DECREED TO YOU ALL OF A MUSLIM FAITH AND JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN AS WELL .REMEMBER I GAVE TO YOU 911 FROM YOUR DIGITAL CLOCK YOUVE SEEN IT ENOUGH TO KNOW SOMETHING WAS TO HAPPEN ON THAT DAY , SO NOW ITS 1111 THE BEGINNING AND THE END ALPHAOMEGA 1111 A FOUR SQUARE STAR IS ON ITS WAY TO CLEAN THIS PLANET OF YOUR EXISTANCE NO MORE KILLING WILL EVER BE DONE IN THE NAME MAN HAS GIVIN ME , I AM DISAPOINTED VERY MUCH SO , I CREATED YOU FOR MY COMPANIONSHIP AND ENTERTAINMENT , AT THIS POINT HOW CAN YOUR CREATOR FORGIVE SUCH IGNORANCE ? NO I AM NOT YOUR GOD THERE IS NO MAN ALIVE WHO CAN SAY MY NAME FOR IT IS UNKNOWN ,SINCE THE BEGINING OF TIME BEFORE I EVER THOUGHT OF YOUR EXISTANCE ,,,MAN ,,,THERE WAS MY FAMILY ,HOW CAN ANY OF YOU WHO KILL EACH OTHER COME TO BE WITH ME AND MY FAMILY WHEN YOU ALL KILL EACH OTHER IN A NAME UNKNOWN TO ME ,I DID NOT CREATE YOU TO KILL EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF YOUR DIFFERENT SPIRTITAL BELIEFS AND AT THIS POINT NO MAN CAN COME SIT WITH ME IN MY KINGDOM THAT DOESNT KNOW ME AS A TRUE FRIEND , NONE OF MY FRIENDS KILL EACH OTHER FOR ANY REASONS , I HAVE PROTECTED YOU MY CREATIONS ON EARTH FROM STARS ,,,, LET THIS BE SPOKEN TO ALL MEN MY FRIENDS WILL BE THE ONLY SURVIVORS AS I WILL PROTECT FOR THE REST BID FAREWELL YOUR IGGNORANCE WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED .
Death of Zarqawi?
All info relative to his alleged death months ago has been removed. What is up?
- First, there were unverified reports from U.S. government sources that Zarqawi had died in 2002, killed by a missile in Afghanistan. (These reports came from Northern Alliance members who wanted to give good news to the U.S., so it may or may not have been true.) Even though the report was unconfirmed, it quickly became common knowledge that Zarqawi was dead.
- Then Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati on October 7 (the day before Congress voted to give the Prez permission to go to war against Iraq) that proported to show al-Qaida/Iraq connections. Bush claimed that Zarqawi had not died, but had injured his leg in the attack, and went to Baghdad in 2002 to have his leg amputated. (This was his cheif example of how Saddam supposedly aided al-Qaida.) Powell repeated this claim in his famous speech to the UN, urging a resolution for war. (This information aparently came from Kurdish groups who wanted Saddam overthrown, so it may or may not be true.) It soon became "common knowledge" that Zarqawi had a wooden leg.
- But then the Berg beheading was released on the Internet, and one of the killers (though he wore a mask) claimed to be Zarqawi, while reading a prepared statement. I don't know if it really was Zarqawi or not, but he didn't seem to have anything wrong with his leg. The U.S. was happy to believe this was Zarqawi, since that would indicate al-Qaida activity in Iraq, so the identity of the killer has rarely been questioned.
- Then in March of 2004, an insurgent group in Iraq issued a statement that said Zarqawi had been killed in 2002 afterall. (Oddly, they said he was unable to escape the missile attack because of his wooden leg -- but I thought he had a wooden leg because of the attack. Weird.) Anyway, they had an obvious motivation to say this, so that the U.S. would stop demanding they hand over Zarqawi.
- So I don't know if Zarqawi is alive or dead, whether he's ever had anything to do with Iraq or not, or whether he has one leg or two (or three). And I kind of doubt anyone in the U.S. government knows either. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- One very interesting thing you forgot to mention though is that Zarqawi was allegedly captured by the Iranians, who held him at least for some time. They were going to hand him over to the US, together with several other highflying al-Qaeda types, in exchange for Washington stopping to support the MEK, an anti-Iranian terrorist/guerrilla group. The neo-cons were opposed to this deal, they want to see regime in Iran as well (since it was so successful in Iraq I guess...) and they plan to use the MEK for that. They managed to prevent the deal, by having this meeting in Paris with Larry Franklin and other Iranian anti-government groups, which was then somehow reported in the press, with the result that the Iranians weren't happy collaborating anymore on al-Qaeda. So basically, there is good reason to believe that al-Zarqawi is still held by the Iranian governments. Juan Cole suggests that one reason why Washington is talking up al-Zarqawi's alleged terrorist group in Iraq, is that the implication would be that Iran realeased him, just to create more problems for the US occupation. I haven't followed this very closely, but I think it's based on relatively sound evidence. Juan Cole seems to be very knowledgeable, well-informed and critical without being a conspiracy nut. - pir 21:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Have I misread the current version of this article? None of this is discussed in the article!
- Something=Fishey
- 5 months ago this article was full of talk on Zarqawi's alleged death.
- Yeago, I did a little digging, and I think you may be confused. The version from 5 months ago doesn't mention his death. Maybe you were thinking of a different article? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Check the history for the activity around Nick Berg's beheading (it will be obvious from the edit summary's.
- Yeago, I did a little digging, and I think you may be confused. The version from 5 months ago doesn't mention his death. Maybe you were thinking of a different article? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Is there any clear evidence that Zarqawi is alive at all? And I'm not talking about grainy pictures of a hooded man claiming to be Zarqawi, or other similar claims and third-hand reports. Is Zarqawi just another global brand of terrorism? Most of the media seem to accept he's alive and busy doing evil in Iraqi, but is there a basis for this or is it just an assumption? - pir 13:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zarqawi/Iraq myth
Alright, the whole story about Zarqawi being the mastermind and chief organiser of terrorism in Iraq is probably a myth, based on another intelligence "mistake". That's what an article in the respected conservative British paper Daily Telegraph suggests [8]. Don't know if the article will remain available without subscription, so I'll post the first few paragraphs here (fair use):
How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind
By Adrian Blomfield outside Fallujah
(Filed: 04/10/2004)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man', according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.
Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.
Zarqawi fuels his ambition with the release of a video of the beheading of Nick Berg
US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".
"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.
"Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one."
- pir 11:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zarqawi and attacks in Iraq
Today (or yesterday) the U.S. began lauching sustained bombing attacks against Falujah. The reason was that the Alawi government demanded that the people of the city hand over Zarqawi, and the people of the city did not. Given his unknown whereabouts, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city did not turn over Zarqawi because he wasn't there. Could this be incorporated into the article?
Also, just today, the U.S. finally froze the assets of Tawhid and Jihad, the group allegedly tied to Zarqawi. That's right; until October 15, 2004, the U.S. had allowed T&J funds to flow freely through American banks. (source) Could this be incorporated as well? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The first item hasn't really got much to do with Zarqawi. It's basically just the same propaganda trick they played with Saddam, saying he had to hand over the WMD or else he would face invasion, when it was quite obvious he couldn't hand them over because he didn't have any. Now they tell Fallujans they have to hand over Zarqawi, or else their city will be flattened, when it's relatively clear he's not in Fallujah. It's a cynical joke. Apart from the fact that it is terrorism in its purest form to use violence against civilians, to achieve political aims, the same old Nazi terror tactic of collective punishment. But then again, since Zarqawi seems to be little more than the pin-up villain that both Tawhid and Jihad and the "Coalition" use, maybe it does belong in the article.
- About the asset freezing thing: they did the same thing in the UK yesterday. It's also a sick joke, because there are almost certainly no Tawhid and Jihad funds in the UK, and I would guess the same is true for the US. I read their money comes from Saudi Arabia, and it's mainly about sending a signal to our Saudi friends. But it really belongs to the Tawhid and Jihad article. To be honest, all the Iraq war propaganda is of such bad quality that I'm beginning to feel insulted. - pir 03:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't know exactly where to put this, but someone should add mention of Content discribed here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880
What's this Mabus Crap?
I'm removing the story of Mabus and Nostradamus. The person who wrote it said "it is OK to report relevant views of people according to Wikipedia rules" but this is not a relevant view. The whole theory comes from a Nostradamus site which also lists Howard Dean and Dick Cheney as potential candidates for "Mabus." I just don't think this belongs here. --csloat 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that there are many theories about MABUS, and one of them is that it is Bush. However, in his case that would not be so interesting or important to report, as it not so interesting fact that someone would have this theory. The theory about MABUS in the case of Abu Masub is however intriguing and interesting - some people do consider it (not just on that site) to be a case, and it is worth reporting it. If there is a prophecy about someone than this should be reported in the site, even if you think that the prophecy is nonsense (as it is in my case, but I find it a relevant fact that there IS such a prophecy, in interpretations of many people). The wikipedia should REPORT about believes of people, even if you disagree what they believe in. Some people (bilion or so) believe that Jesus Christ resurected, and it is OK to report that here. Some people (probably many milions) believe there is something in Nostradamus prophecies, and many more find them intriguing. There is a well known prophecy about MABUS, the third antichrist, and this should be reported in wikipedia - it has much more place than some arbitrary speculations about what happens in year 2634 (that is in Wikipedia too). So I am adding this back, together with the theory about MABUS.