Al-Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi killed

[spooky]

Originally Posted by DanClass

spook spook?

been working for a couple days, havent been on the forums.

there are no terrorists in iraq. there never were any WMDs. saddam didnt invade kuwait. 9/11 was the american government blowing shit up to kill that one FBI agent. the US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing US soldiers so haliburton can make tens of billions of dollars.

america is the great satan!

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!


for some reason the soundtrack to the wizard of oz is playin in my head....

[benjita]

Originally Posted by spooky

been working for a couple days, havent been on the forums.

there are no terrorists in iraq. there never were any WMDs. saddam didnt invade kuwait. 9/11 was the american government blowing shit up to kill that one FBI agent. the US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing US soldiers so haliburton can make tens of billions of dollars.

america is the great satan!

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!


for some reason the soundtrack to the wizard of oz is playin in my head....

Wow, for a second there, I almost thought you believed that.

[arcatacat]

Originally Posted by spooky

for some reason the soundtrack to the wizard of oz is playin in my head....

Isn't the soundtrack called the Dark Side of the Moon?

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Well, I'd have to hunt around again for the 100,000+ number that I know I saw. This information states:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...insurgency.htm

In late July 2005, Gen. Jack Keane, a former deputy chief of staff for the Army, said that US and Iraqi forces had killed or captured over 50,000 Iraqi insurgents since the begining of 2005. The Pentagon had been previously stated that 15,000 to 16,000 Iraqis were in custody in Iraq. The difference is explained by the fact that some Iraqis who were detained in military operations were subsequently released.

It lists all the groups in the insurgency and I guarantee that they are not all working for the Sunni. Al Qaeda, Hamas, and a lot of opportunists trying to make a name for themselves are involved. The CIA website is dry reading and is very good at saying nothing. They're a secretive bunch.

Various estimates of total insurgenst range between 3,000 and 200,000 depending on the source and what they are trying to lead you to believe on that day. There was a big headline a few months back that said there are more insurgents than coalition troops. Then others list the number at less than 5,000. It kind of doesn't make sense. All of these can't be true, you know?

I will research the Sunni specifically. You say they are innocent people defending their country. My gut instinct based on all my previous reading says terrorist. You could be right. Or they could be a bit of both. The source of their funding could tell a tale. Whether they are still loyal to the Baath Party could reveal something. You got me curious to know more about them specifically. You see the mindnumbing list of groups I have been looking at on that first link.

And no doubt our founding fathers were "freedom fighters" which is a euphamism for terrorist in most cases.

Originally Posted by benjita

From the CIA website (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...geos/iz.html):



Currently, the Sunni are the minority at about 35% of Iraq. They are opposed to the progression of Democracy in Iraq. Many have boycotted the elections because of this. There are no proven ties between these Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorist cells. I understand that SOME of the activity in Iraq is due to Al Qaeda, but not all. Those that are only fighting against American troops in an attempt to drive out foreign influence I wouldn't call terrorists. Those that are taking advantage of this fighting to stage attacks to cause more chaos, I WOULD call terrorists. There is a marked difference in my opinion, and I just cringe when people blanket the term "Terrorists" across anyone who is attacking Americans.

Don't get me wrong, here. I'm against anybody killing anybody else, and wish each soldier a safe return home, but many people misunderstand terminology, and press does not help to clarify anything. If they were around 240 years ago, British press would be calling George Washington a "Terrorist". Don't believe EVERYTHING you hear on the news. We may have caught some Al Qaeda in Iraq, but not all the insurgents in Iraq are Al Qaeda.

As I understand, the Iraqi death toll overall is only around 40,000, including civilians AND insurgents. Where did you get 100,000 from?

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Blitzgal,

Here's an answer to your spaghetti theory. Apparently he didn't get bombs right on top of his head but he was close enough to die.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195107/

And here is the guys who are tasked with finding Z-Man and Bin Laden. Don't worry, Osama is still being hunted. The reason he hasn't been caught is because it's, like, a hard job.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=task+force+145

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Don't get me wrong, the first word out of my mouth when I heard the news about Zarqawi was "Good!"

Then of course the consipiracy theorist in me wondered how they managed to get such an intact body out of a house that was obliterated by two 500 pound bombs...why isn't he spaghetti now?

But consider that England managed to catch the London bombers within a week. We still haven't caught the man who actually orchestrated and conducted the terror attacks in New York almost five years ago. What the fuck is up with that? Do they even care about catching him?

[the big lebowski]

i think john stewart said it best:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewid...l?itemId=70353

[lickmyballssuckmy]

He usually does..

zarqawi.jpg

Originally Posted by the big lebowski

i think john stewart said it best:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewid...l?itemId=70353