http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt92.html
This article made me question whether Zarqawi really exists or not
I remember before the war he was used as the connection between al-qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I also read somewhere that he was transporting chemical weapons through Turkey into Europe. All this while missing one leg.
Since the war he's been accussed of organising the bombings in Istanbul, Casablanca, Madrid while also commanding the entire insurgency in Iraq from the seiged city of Fallujah.
I find it funny how they're not able to catch him considering he's allegedy playing an active role in the insurgency rather than just hiding in a hole like Saddam.
At this point most US defense analysts agree that bin Laden and Zarqawi are not really directing their organizations. They are simply figure heads and fantastic propaganda tools for recruiting more terrorists.
Even Zawahiri to a certain extent is too busy hiding.
The problem with terrorism is that you cannot decapitate - the individual cells will act with or without signals from the leadership.
Well it would be a really good move for the nutters to make up a fictional leader for everyone to chase...
...If it were not the fact that The coalition of terror is actually dreadful at catching leaders... such as the 'claim' OBL escaped from Tora Bora on horseback... and the non-catching of Taliban leader by the Americans. Noone even know what he looks like!
But this zarqawi is probably real.
He has by now probably made links with 'Alqaeda' (whatever that means...), even though initially he was a separate organisation.
I do not think there is any central command for the insurgency. Just political manouverings.
People wake up angry, someone supplies them with weaponry, they blow stuff up, but I doubt it is as highly organised as it is suggested, as that would make them a conventional force that could be fought.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
lol what the hell are you reading lew rockwell for?
lol!
Was it Gorbachev who said he is doing America alot of harm by removing is bogeyman?
The US has had plenty of replacements.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
That is the single biggest debate in the Pentagon right now.
We aren't sure if terrorism is simply a network or a centralised bureaucratic machine - like the kind we are used to. The problem is we are not equipped to handle networks, all of our doctrine is for an entirely different kind of enemy.
Frankly I agree with Gen. Zinni that we are basically working with a network no more sophistocated than my girlfriend's cell phone addressbook. These guys use commercial technology and rather than having a chain of command pool resources and direct people toward possible missions on an ad hoc basis.
They caught Saddam and he was only trying to hide. Zarqawi is trying to avoid detection while directing a guerilla campaign according to the US military. He should be much easier to catch.
I think they're just building him up so that when they eventually kill him they can claim that its another "turning point" in the war just like the capture of Saddam and the attack on Fallujah and the transfer of power to the iraqi government and the elections and the writing of the constitution..... well you get the idea.
Americans need to know who they are fighting against. They need a bogey-man.
Zarqawi is the bogey-man they are being presented with.
Thats true. Its funny how we don't know the names of any of the ex-iraqi army officers who are involved in the insurgency and probably have much more influence than Zarqawi. They need to make it look like America is fighting the people behind 9/11.
Ehh, it's as much a signal to the insurgents as it is to the US public. The persistent evasion of Zarqawi and bin Laden from our forces has been invaluable to the terrorist cause. Should we capture either of them you can expect a very public message to the terrorists which I wouldn't doubt would have a deterrent effect.
It also would provide a very nice opportunity to declare victory and leave it at that.
Do we?
Insurgents are killing US soldiers now. Doesn't matter to the GP how, when, or why they are doing it.
The war has become it's own justification over here.
I watched a documentry a while ago and Musharraf said America is the "[i] cause of terrorism[/i]". On one of mi threads u said something about Musharraf remaining libral...HUH?
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
well why the hell do u think they are killing soldiers? :roll:
This war always was unjustafiable and it could never be justified.
The ONLY way to save the troops is to withdraw the troops :roll:
U only got ur president to blame 4 the number of soldiers killed.
The longer the troops are in Iraq the more damage it is gonna do to iraq (of course I wouldn't expect u to care about iraq), more "propaganda" the wierdos are gonna promote, more terrorists r gonna get recruited, more terrosrist attacks there are gonna be, more innocent ppl that are gonna die, the bigger the problems gonna get, and for the first time ever I actually agree with something Musharraf said "America is the cause of terrorism".
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
Judda,
Read my posts most carefully. The Bush Admin went into this war unilaterally for a reason - it's part of the neocon doctrine. When you enter a war unilaterally you do not have to answer to anybody but the general public. Thus the only people the US military has to make the war appealing to is the US public.
Salaf indicated it is necessary for the administration to make this look like we are fighting the people behind 9/11. I am simply saying that is not necessary, now that the insurgents are running about blowing up infrastructure and killing American soldiers. The US public will accept defeating the Iraqi terrorist insurgency as the primary motive in staying.
Thus the war becomes it's own justification.
Liberalism and support for the United States are not the same thing. Gerhard Schroeder is quite liberal and makes similar comments constantly (esp during German elections). Musharraf is a secular leader with at least nominal support for basic human rights - although freedom house gave him a pitiful ranking he is the most liberal leader in the region (now with the exception of Aghanistan). Thus we tolerate him.
you tolerate him coz he sucks up to u...
he is a freak like bush....
he only helps u coz u pay him...
on T.V. he said that he dont believe in human rights....
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
If he sucks up to us why does he say that we are the primary cause of terrorism?
It's your quote afterall - perhaps you can marry those two points...
His security forces have done nothing to advance our interests on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border - frankly I don't think he even has control up there.
first he kisses ur ass
and then he kicks ur ass
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
lol so which is it Judda - does America tolerate him because he sucks up, or, failing that, or is it more likely we tolerate him because he has a nominal commitment to liberalism and we don't have any intention of invading pakistan?
ya money :roll:
Xactly how much did u pay the cheepskate so u cud invade afghanistan?
didn't i just say he dont believe in human rights? :roll:
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
hes there if ya need im....
i think i failed to mention that i is only posting coz i is bored, not coz i is making a valid point....
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
lol oookay....
Shouldn't you be in school or something?
Don't be like me - skipping class because you are addicted to the forum, even when there is nobody around is not a good idea.
we got comps in most lessons....
works too boring and teachers too du.mb
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
So I take it your grades are all top in reflection of your teacher's stupidity?
well i did crap in mi sats...
and i is predicted to do crap in mi GCSE's....
not my foult...
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…