And the news just gets grimmer!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From the Associated Press...

...BAGHDAD (Jan. 4) -- Insurgents assassinated the highest-ranking Iraqi official in eight months Tuesday, gunning down the governor of Baghdad province and six of his bodyguards, and a suicide truck bomber killed 10 people at an Interior Ministry commando headquarters, the latest in a string of violence ahead of Jan. 30 elections.

Five American troops were slain in three separate attacks, officials said, in the deadliest day for the U.S. military in Iraq since a suicide bombing at a mess tent in Mosul on Dec. 21 killed 22 people, including 14 U.S. soldiers and three American contractors.

The militant group of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaida in Iraq, claimed responsibility for killing Gov. Ali al-Haidari and his bodyguards, according to a statement posted on a Web site known for carrying such claims.

''We tell every traitor and supporter of the Jews and Christians that this is your fate,'' the statement said. Its authenticity could not immediately be verified.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,976 • Replies: 38

No top replies

Predictably, one of George Bush's puppets, Colin Powell, spoke up:

Speaking in Thailand, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was saddened by al-Haidari's death.
''It once again shows that there are these murderers and terrorists, former regime elements in Iraq, who don't want to see elections. They don't want the people of Iraq to chose new leaders. They want to go back to the past. They want to go back to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein's regime and that's not going to happen,'' Powell said.

None of these guys get it!

0 Replies

Maybe some good news will help you feel a little better.

http://drudgereport.com/flashai.htm
"DUBAI, January 4 (Itar-Tass) - Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the "target number one" in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources. Al-Zarqawi, leader of the terrorist group Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad, was recently appointed the director of the Al-Qaeda organisation in Iraq."

I don't support this aspect of the Iraq war but there are some positives that might come out of it. However, with each Soldiers death/injury, whatever good comes out of this better be worth it.

0 Replies

KurdishMedia.com could not verify the report of al-Zarqawi's arrest, this was also reported in China Times. It has not been picked up or verified by any other news source as this time.

0 Replies

I appreciate your position, Woiyo...but just as I do not see the removal of one man, Saddam Hussein, as truly being good news...I honestly do not see the arrest of one man, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi.

In any case, the report you linked indicates that the report is not true.

My guess is that when (if) Zargawi is ever captured...you will see the American media awash in stories about it.

0 Replies

Whether it is true or not,the capture of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, it will not change the picture in Iraq one Iota. The insurgents are proving to be well organized and there plenty who will take his place.

0 Replies

I'm keeping everything crossed that it's true, but have my doubts.

There's a picture of him on this website(along with news of his so-called "capture"). He looks so normal (for being such a monster).

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/04/content_2414126.htm

0 Replies

Crossing your whatevers, is that the same technique the Rumsfeld uses? Good luck!

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Whether it is true or not,the capture of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, it will not change the picture in Iraq one Iota. The insurgents are proving to be well organized and there plenty who will take his place.

You may well be correct. Iraq has been, is and will forever be an "backward" civilization, continuing the tradition of tribal warfare, totalitarism regimes intent on killing each other.

Yet, our elected officials, EVERYONE OF THEM, seem intent on seeing this "thing" through. I do not see the Congress or Senate pressing the President to immediately remove our troops.

Again, our mission to protect the US was completed the day we captured Saddam and stopped looking for WMD.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Crossing your whatevers, is that the same technique the Rumsfeld uses? Good luck!

Nah. Here's his Smile

#1 GI Joe With a Kung-Fu Grip!

http://www.poe-news.com/features.php?feat=31845

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Again, our mission to protect the US was completed the day we captured Saddam and stopped looking for WMD.

If "our mission" was to protect the United States...this invasion has been a disaster, because Iraq posed no threat to us as it was....and now poses an immense threat to us....even if just because of what our folly has done to increase resentment against us. But more than that...it has given unneeded vitality to recruitment efforts by Islamic fundamentalists...which, I needn't point out, increases the threat to us.

If our mission was to protect the United States...George Bush has managed one of the most spectacular counterproductive undertakings in history.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Whether it is true or not,the capture of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, it will not change the picture in Iraq one Iota. The insurgents are proving to be well organized and there plenty who will take his place.

If this is the case, why is there so much made about the fact that Osama hasn't been caught yet?

0 Replies

Because Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the
9/11 atrocities and every living soul would like to capture
him.

The capture of Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi will not change
the situation in Iraq, as the majority of Iraqis is fighting
against the US and western world for that matter. As au1929
said, there are plenty who will take his place.

0 Replies

because Bush said "you can run but you can't hide"

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If our mission was to protect the United States...George Bush has managed one of the most spectacular counterproductive undertakings in history.

That's such a true statement. We are far more vulnerable and
target point for terrorist activities as ever before.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Again, our mission to protect the US was completed the day we captured Saddam and stopped looking for WMD.

Do you really believe there is any truth to this statement?

bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network has been identified as the group responsible for compromising the safety of the American people, for bringing death to their own soil with unprecidented force and power.
I am continually unable to see how the "mission to protect the US" even included Iraq. Perhaps I am just too thick to see what the Bushies see...

....what do you mean "stopped looking for WMD"?
If they did in fact exist, which the current administration sold the American public on, then wouldn't finding them be of the utmost importance:
1. To give an ounce of legitimacy to their cause
2. To prevent them from getting into the wrong hands.

Stopping looking for them, seems in a sense, a method of aiding terrorists. Does it not?

If Saddam's WMD existed, they still exist today.
If they were in bad hands with Saddam, and are not currently in the hands of the American military, they are in far worse hands by now.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Again, our mission to protect the US was completed the day we captured Saddam and stopped looking for WMD.

Do you really believe there is any truth to this statement?

bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network has been identified as the group responsible for compromising the safety of the American people, for bringing death to their own soil with unprecidented force and power.
I am continually unable to see how the "mission to protect the US" even included Iraq. Perhaps I am just too thick to see what the Bushies see...

....what do you mean "stopped looking for WMD"?
If they did in fact exist, which the current administration sold the American public on, then wouldn't finding them be of the utmost importance:
1. To give an ounce of legitimacy to their cause
2. To prevent them from getting into the wrong hands.

Stopping looking for them, seems in a sense, a method of aiding terrorists. Does it not?

If Saddam's WMD existed, they still exist today.
If they were in bad hands with Saddam, and are not currently in the hands of the American military, they are in far worse hands by now.

Of course I believe it, I said it, did I not??

You have made several incorrect assumptions in trying to ridicule my position.
1. The Iraq conflict has no direct relationship to Bin Laden.
2. The IRaq conflict was a continuence of the Kuwait invasion by Iraq and Iraq refusal to comply with the terms of surrender.
3. During the 10 years of inaction by all memebr Nations of the UN, all worldwide intelligence reports indicated that Iraq was at the LEAST a gathering threat to the region and the US as Iraq had demonstrated an effort to support al-queda with cash and or arms.

As a result, we had every right to go in to IRaq, remove the regime and seek and destroy any WMD found.

For you to suggest that the US Govt lied about the Intel, is naive at best given that the UN agreed that they did exist.

0 Replies

cough cough.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Again, our mission to protect the US was completed the day we captured Saddam and stopped looking for WMD.

Do you really believe there is any truth to this statement?

bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network has been identified as the group responsible for compromising the safety of the American people, for bringing death to their own soil with unprecidented force and power.
I am continually unable to see how the "mission to protect the US" even included Iraq. Perhaps I am just too thick to see what the Bushies see...

....what do you mean "stopped looking for WMD"?
If they did in fact exist, which the current administration sold the American public on, then wouldn't finding them be of the utmost importance:
1. To give an ounce of legitimacy to their cause
2. To prevent them from getting into the wrong hands.

Stopping looking for them, seems in a sense, a method of aiding terrorists. Does it not?

If Saddam's WMD existed, they still exist today.
If they were in bad hands with Saddam, and are not currently in the hands of the American military, they are in far worse hands by now.

woiyo wrote:

Of course I believe it, I said it, did I not??

You have made several incorrect assumptions in trying to ridicule my position.

Not ridiculing you, but the absurdity of a wavering justification for war.
It has morphed so many times I don't wish to list the process it has undergone--the latest being that this war is a continuation of the 1st Gulf War.
OK.

woiyo wrote:

You have made several incorrect assumptions in trying to ridicule my position.
1. The Iraq conflict has no direct relationship to Bin Laden.
2. The IRaq conflict was a continuence of the Kuwait invasion by Iraq and Iraq refusal to comply with the terms of surrender.
3. During the 10 years of inaction by all memebr Nations of the UN, all worldwide intelligence reports indicated that Iraq was at the LEAST a gathering threat to the region and the US as Iraq had demonstrated an effort to support al-queda with cash and or arms.

I may have implied #1, but the rest are yours.

woiyo wrote:

As a result, we had every right to go in to IRaq, remove the regime and seek and destroy any WMD found.
For you to suggest that the US Govt lied about the Intel, is naive at best given that the UN agreed that they did exist.

I am suggesting that there have been lies accross the board, and the WMD was just one of them.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If our mission was to protect the United States...George Bush has managed one of the most spectacular counterproductive undertakings in history.

That's such a true statement. We are far more vulnerable and
target point for terrorist activities as ever before.

Thank you.

I don't want to screw this thread up with a digression...so, if you get a chance, please stop by this new thread I just posted:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1104633#1104633

Got a question there for ya, Jane.

0 Replies

And the news just gets grimmer!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know