View Full Version : Al-Zarqawi has been dead for a long time
Assalamu-alaikum:
Even our shia brethren have to come conclusion that Abu Musab is an American sysop.
Ma'a-salaama,
Tayen
-----------------------
Al-Zarqawi Dead, An Invention Used to Prolong Occupation, Says Baghdad Imam
Khaleej Times, (AFP)
16 September 2005
PARIS - Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation, an Iraqi Shia cleric said in an interview published here on Friday.
Sheikh Jawad Al Kalesi, the imam of the al-Kazemiya mosque in Baghdad, told Le Monde newspaper: “I don’t think that Abu Musab Al Zarqawi exists as such. He’s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people.”
Kalesi claimed that Zarqawi was killed in the Kurdish northern region of Iraq at the beginning of the US-led war on the country as he was meeting with members of the Ansar Al-Islam group affiliated to Al Qaeda.
“His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is therefore a ploy used by the Americans, an excuse to continue the occupation. It’s a pretext so they don’t leave Iraq.”
Kalesi made the comments to Le Monde as he passed through Paris after attending an inter-religious gathering in the eastern French city of Lyon organised by the Roman Catholic Sant’Egidio Community,
Assalamu-alaikum and greetings:
I thank sr Lulua for drawing attention to in another thread the following article that I've cut and pasted. It takes into account the recent detention of 2 brit counter-insurgency sysops in Basra. Here's the article:
----------
Who's Blowing up Iraq?
by Mike Whitney
source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050920_who_s_blowing_up_ira.htm
Who’s Blowing Up Iraq? New evidence that bombs are being planted by British Commandos by Mike Whitney
“The Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES.” Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer, 9-20-05; “British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers”
In more than two years since the United States initiated hostilities against Iraq, there has never been a positive identification of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Never.
That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist; it simply suggests that prudent people will challenge the official version until his whereabouts and significance in the conflict can be verified.
At present, much of the rationale for maintaining the occupation depends on this elusive and, perhaps, illusory figure. It’s odd how Al-Zarqawi appears at the precise coordinates of America’s bombing-raids, and then, miraculously vanishes unscathed from the scene of the wreckage. This would be a remarkable feat for anyone, but especially for someone who only has one leg.
Al-Zarqawi may simply be a fantasy dreamed up by Pentagon planners to put a threatening face on the Iraqi resistance. The Defense Dept has been aggressive in its effort to shape information in a way that serves the overall objectives of the occupation. The primary aim of the Pentagon’s “Strategic Information” program is to distort the truth in a way that controls the storyline created by the media. Al-Zarqawi fits perfectly within this paradigm of intentional deception.
The manipulation of information factors heavily in the steady increase of Iraqi casualties, too. Although the military refuses “to do body counts”; many people take considerable interest in the daily death toll.
Last week, over 200 civilians were killed in seemingly random acts of violence purportedly caused by al-Zarqawi. But, were they?
Were these massive attacks the work of al-Zarqawi as the western media reports or some other “more shadowy” force?
One member of the Iraqi National Assembly. Fatah al-Sheikh, stated, “It seems that the American forces are trying to escalate the situation in order to make the Iraqi people suffer…. There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupation to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people, and spread rumors in order to scare the one from the other. The occupiers are trying to start religious incitement and if it does not happen, then they will try to start an internal Shiite incitement.”
Al-Sheikh’s feelings are shared by a great many Iraqis. They can see that everything the US has done, from the forming a government made up predominantly of Shi’ites and Kurds, to creating a constitution that allows the breaking up to the country (federalism), to using the Peshmerga and Badr militia in their attacks on Sunni cities, to building an Interior Ministry entirely comprised of Shi’ites, suggests that the Pentagon’s strategy is to fuel the sectarian divisions that will lead to civil war. Al-Zarqawi is an integral facet of this broader plan. Rumsfeld has cast the Jordanian as the agent-provocateur; the driving force behind religious partition and antagonism.
But, al-Zarqawi has nothing to gain by killing innocent civilians, and everything to lose. If he does actually operate in Iraq, he needs logistical supporting all his movements; including help with safe-houses, assistants, and the assurance of invisibility in the community. (“The ocean in which he swims”) These would disappear instantly if he recklessly killed and maimed innocent women and children.
Last week the Imam of Baghdad’s al-Kazimeya mosque, Jawad al-Kalesi said, that “al-Zarqawi is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation….He’s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people.” Al-Kalesi added that al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north and that “His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death.” (AFP)
Most Iraqis probably agree with al-Kalesi, but that hasn’t deterred the Pentagon from continuing with the charade. This is understandable given that al-Zarqawi is the last tattered justification for the initial invasion. It’s doubtful that the Pentagon will ditch their final threadbare apology for the war. But the reality is vastly different from the spin coming from the military. In fact, foreign fighters play a very small role in Iraq with or without al-Zarqawi. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) revealed this week in their report, “Analysts and government officials in the US and Iraq overstated the size of the foreign element in the Iraqi insurgency…… Iraqi fighters made up less than 10% of the armed groups’ ranks, perhaps, even half of that.” The report poignantly notes that most of the foreign fighters were not previously militants at all, but were motivated by, “revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country.”
The report concludes that the invasion of Iraq has added thousands of “fresh recruits to Osama bin Laden’s network;” a fact that is no longer in dispute among those who have studied the data on the topic.
The al-Zarqawi phantasm is a particularly weak-link in the Pentagon’s muddled narrative. The facts neither support the allegations of his participation nor prove that foreigners are a major contributor to the ongoing violence. Instead, the information points to a Defense establishment that cannot be trusted in anything it says and that may be directly involved in the terrorist-bombings that have killed countless thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Regrettably, that is prospect that can’t be ignored. After all, no one else benefits from the slaughter.
(Note: Since this article was written, the Washington Post has added to our suspicions. In an Ellen Knickmeyer article “British Smash into Iraqi Jail to free 2 detained Soldiers” 9-20-05, Knickmeyer chronicles the fighting between British forces and Iraqi police who were detaining 2 British commandos. “THE IRAQI SECURITY OFFICIALS ON MONDAY VARIOUSLY ACCUSED THE TWO BRITONS THEY DETAINED OF SHOOTING AT IRAQI FORCES or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES.”
Is this why the British army was ordered to “burst through the walls of an Iraqi jail Monday in the southern city of Basra”…followed by “British armored vehicles backed by helicopter gun-ships” ending in “hours of gun battles and rioting in Basra's streets”? (Washington Post)
Reuters reported that “half a dozen armored vehicles had smashed into the jail” and the provincial governor, Mohammed Walli, told news agencies that the British assault was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible."
So, why were the British so afraid to go through the normal channels to get their men released?
Could it be that the two commandos were “trying to plant explosives” as the article suggests?
An interview on Syrian TV last night also alleges that the British commandos “were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets”.
“Al-Munajjid] In fact, Nidal, this incident gave answers to questions and suspicions that were lacking evidence about the participation of the occupation in some armed operations in Iraq. Many analysts and observers here had suspicions that the occupation was involved in some armed operations against civilians and places of worship and in the killing of scientists. But those were only suspicions that lacked proof. The proof came today through the arrest of the two British soldiers while they were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets. This proves, according to observers, that the occupation is not far from many operations that seek to sow sedition and maintain disorder, as this would give the occupation the justification to stay in Iraq for a longer period.
[Zaghbur] Ziyad al-Munajjaid in Baghdad, thank you very much.
Copyright Syrian Arab TV and BBC Monitoring, 2005”
And then there was this on Al-Jazeera TV, Doha, 9-19-05; Interview with Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the National Assembly and deputy for Basra.
…”the sons of Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market. However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them. They [the two non-Iraqis] then fired at the people there and killed some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime.”
Copyright Al Jazeera TV and BBC Monitoring, 2005 (Thanks to Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research for the quotes from Al Jazeera and Syrian TV)
Does this solve the al-Zarqawi mystery? Are the bombs that are killing so many Iraqi civilians are being planted by British and American Intelligence?
We’ll have to see if this damning story can be corroborated by other sources.)
Mike lives in Washington State with his charming wife Joan and two spoiled and overfed dogs, Cocoa and Pat-Fergie.
Assalaamu alaikum.
Kind of all fits into place...I mean...the fabricated events of 9-11, the lies (which, by the way, Powell admitted his part in the farce recently in public interview) which led to the invasion of Iraq, the evolving lies of the reasoning for remaining in Iraq, the refusal of the Americans & Brits to withdraw from Iraq.
And the Israeli spy rings found in connection to the 9-11 incidents, yet released ever so quickly and discreetly.
Lots of things add up...and don't add up.
Lots of cover-ups.
May Allah help us all.
And may Allah reveal those evil plotters.
Lulua.
macmuslim
23-09-2005, 00:48
Assalamu alaikum
We should not be surprised. As someone once said to me on another forum, the literal meaning of the word 'Kaffir' is 'One who Covers' or One Who Conceals'. This of course refers to their covering up from Allah swt and his Haqq, but also this is the nature of the real Kuffaar, to cover and conceal.
Surah al Mumtahina: (this is from the Pickthall translation)
O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way.
If they have the upper hand of you, they will be your foes, and will stretch out their hands and their tongues toward you with evil (intent), and they long for you to disbelieve.
tbahrain
23-09-2005, 04:04
I think the Iraqis are smart enough to know that all these are designed to split them and to create unrest leading to civil war so the invaders could stay there forever.
I am pasting below an analysis of the recent Basra incident.
Canon Fodder
Fake Terrorism Is a Coalition's Best Friend
By Matt Hutaff
Sep 20, 2005
The story sounds amazing, almost fantastical.
A car driving through the outskirts of a besieged city opens fire on a police checkpoint, killing one. In pursuit, the police surround and detain the drivers and find the vehicle packed with explosives - perhaps part of an insurgent's plan to destroy lives and cripple property. If that isn't
enough, when the suspects are thrown in prison their allies drive right up to the walls of the jail, break through them and brave petroleum bombs and burning clothes to rescue their comrades. 150 other prisoners break free in the ensuing melee.
Incredible, no? Yet this story took place in the southern Iraqi city of Basra recently. Violence continues to escalate in the breakout's aftermath... just not for the reasons you think.
You see, the drivers of the explosive-laden car were not members of an
insurgency group - they were British Special Forces. Their rescuers? British soldiers driving British tanks.
That's right - two members of the British Armed forces disguised as Arab civilians killed a member of the Iraqi police while evading capture. When the people of Basra rightfully refused to turn the murderers over to the British government, per Coalition "mandate," they sent their own men in and released over 100 prisoners in the process.
Winning the hearts and minds, aren't we?
Sadly, this story is really not all that surprising. After hearing countless accounts of using napalm and torture against innocent civilians in addition to the other daily abuses dished out by American overseers, the thought of British scheming seems perfectly reasonable.
So what we have here is a clear instance of a foreign power attempting to fabricate a terrorist attack. Why else would the soldiers be dressed as Arabs if not to frame them? Why have a car laden with explosives if you don't plan to use them for destructive purposes? Iraq is headed towards civil war, and this operation was meant to accelerate the process by killing people and blaming others. Nothing more, nothing less. That the British army staged an over-the-top escape when it could rely on normal diplomatic channels to recover its people proves that.
Such extreme methods highlight the need to keep secrets.
There have been a number of insurgent bombings in Iraq recently. Who really is responsible for the bloodshed and destruction? The only tangible benefit of the bombings is justification for Coalition forces maintaining the peace in Iraq. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the Iraqis - they already believe most suicide bombings are done by the United States to prompt religious war. After reading about this incident, I'm not inclined to disagree.
Even though this false-flag operation was blown wide open, I'm afraid it might still be used in the mainstream media to incite further violence in the Middle East. Judging by the coverage that has emerged after the incident, my fears seem warranted.
Several articles have already turned the story against the angry Iraqis who fought the British tanks as they demolished the jail wall, painting them as aggressive Shia militia attacking the doe-eyed, innocent troops responding to the concern that their comrades were held by religious fanatics. A photograph of a troop on fire comes complete with commentary that the vehicles were under attack during a "bid to recover arrested servicemen" that were possibly undercover. All criminal elements of British treachery are downplayed, the car's explosive cache is never mentioned and the soldiers who instigated the affair are made victims of an unstable country they are defending.
Hilariously, all of this spin has already landed Iran at the top of the blame game. Because when the war combine botches its own clandestine terrorist acts, what better way to recover than by painting the soulless, freedom-hating country you'd love to invade next as the culprit? In a way, I
almost admire the nerve of officials who are able to infer that Basra's riots have nothing to do with fake insurgent bombing raids and everything to do with religious ties to a foreign country. It's a sheer unmitigated gall that flies in the face of logic and reason.
"The Iranians are careful not to be caught," a British official said as the UK threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Too bad the British aren't! Maybe then they'd be able to complete their black-ops mission without looking like complete fools in the process!
Make no mistake - any and all violence to erupt from Basra over this incident lands squarely on the shoulders of the British army and it’s Special Forces. Instead of stoking the flames of propaganda against a nation it has no hope of ever conquering, maybe Britain should quit trying to intimidate the Iraqis with fear and torture and start focusing on fixing its mistakes and getting out of the Middle East.
These actions are inexcusable and embarrassing; however, they should make you think. If a country like the United Kingdom is willing to commit acts of terror, what kind of false-flag operations do you think the United States is capable of?
If you thought the U.S. wouldn't blow up people it claims to support in the hopes of advancing its agenda, think again. Use this incident as your first reference point.
Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.
Copyright (c) 1998-2005 The Simon.com
Netcurtains3
23-09-2005, 10:40
Hi,
To get a clearer view of CURRENT UK strategic thinking (as opposed to USA thinking) concerning ethnic violence one needs to look at Northern Ireland.
Currently the the UK army and police are getting pelted with petrol bombs by the PROTESTANTS. As part of an exist strategy one needs the majority population not to want your "protection" but rather stand on their own two feet.
However you look at it, knocking down a police station run by Shia muslims in the largest shia muslim town in Iraq was a political act. I cannot see a local army man deciding to do that without some higher backing.
So gut feeling is, the UK army wants out, it does not want to help set up a fundamentalist muslim state (which it currently is), it only really wanted to set up a secular state with equal rights for all. A western european state. We have failed, and we should not spend UK tax payers money (my money) helping the fundamentalist muslim religion take over yet another country. We should never have gone in the first place. Blair should resign, a failure, with only dead peole to show for it. Iraq shows no signs of becoming a secular western state. Its a nightmare for all free thinking democrats and womens rights around the world.
Net
Dear Netcurtains:
I don't read into Basra events the way you're thinking. This was a botched up sysop event, that had to be taken "care" of. The risk was that probably feeling abandoned these SAS men would talk and it seems the new Iraqi police has learnt new methods including has refined drugs provided by their allies that are used against insurgents to make them talk.
Now as soon as that happened "optimists" like you vis-a-vis the "clever" brits, started to let your imagination go wild - and you say we are conspiracy addicts, but this accusation falls perfectly onto your door. Come on the whole new Iraqi government - controlled by Ayatullah al-Sistani - and the constitution are a mirror that Shia i.e fundamentalists are taking over! Who put in place the constituion and the government? The allies of course.
Anyone who has a bit of brains to think may ask where are these foreign insurgents that we hear about eveyday? Can't they produce any? Al-Zarqawi seems to be always magically in places were there will be amercian attacks with "collateral" damages. He evaporates again to reappear somewhere else that needs to be dealt with. Now anyone who has been to army knows, evaporation everytime is impossible, unless al-Zarqawi has "stealth" helicopters that pluck him out everytime he is under heat.
Ma'a-salaama,
Netcurtains3
23-09-2005, 12:20
it can hardly be clasified as:
"vis-a-vis the "clever" brits"
simply for being there was stupid. It was a secular state (albeit corrupt) with some rights for women, with many Catholics living there. Now its fundamentalist nut cases paradise. Thats not clever, thats daft, and it was my hard earned cash (tax) that helped it happen. Blair should resign. Get the troops out and leave it to the nutters. We should have a Tory government that cuts tax, cuts immigration and gets our troops back from iraq. I just can't believe that we're still there. What on earth is the point? "Clever Brits" thats a laugh. We've probably got the lowest collective IQ in Europe.
Dear Netcurtains:
Well it doesn't seem so, Britiain won't be out of Iraq that soon. You have just voted in Tony Blair. He's the most hardheaded british prime-minister ever, with a sense of mission almost like the american evangelists.
So I am afraid Iraq will continue to be a drain on british tax-payers money. That's the bitter pill you have to swallow ;)
Wish you a nice day Netty, and a good weekend.
Ma'a-salaama,
Netcurtains3
25-09-2005, 12:42
Tayeb,
Actually its now looking like a possibility that I am right.
the mouth piece of "New Labour" - The Guadian/Observer
says today (via BBC report of Observer story):
"Mr Blair was responding to an Observer story claiming ministers had told Japan - which has troops in Iraq - of plans to start bringing troops home in May.
"
The Labour party conference will be interesting. Will this be Blair's last.
As I said, the UK tax-payer will not want to set up a fundamentalist Islamic state. Thats the bottom line. I think we're coming out.
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day to all.
Actually, the americans and brits had no business on going in for their programmed 'regime change' in the first place. Typical western arrogance at it's pinnacle.
Enforcing their ideals over that of other soveriegn nations, implying that their (the western) way of life is best.
Well, for peoples of other lands, perhaps the western way of life (political and/or otherwise) is not necessarily the best.
At the very least, let those peoples have the dignity of taking on their own ways as they freely choose.
That, my friends, is the epitomy of democracy. Letting the ppl decide for themselves.
What, you might say, about those immigrating from such lands to US or Britain? Well, that, too, is their free choice. To immigrate for whatever reasons they personally feel right for themselves: political, economical, social, etc.
The key word here is: it is their free choice to do so.
What if...someone from middle east or eastern asia or even south america...should decide that bush and/or blair are not deserving of their political leadership? What if someone from anywhere in the world should determine that the political format in these states is not fitting, and should attempt to invade either or both of those countries, overthrow the current leaders and their administrations, replacing it with first chaos and then their own foreign choice of government??
How would the brits and americans feel then??
You see, when the shoe is put on the other foot...it just doesn't fit right nor feel right, does it??
SubhanAllah...such arrogance that the west is showing and building up thru the years.
And they wonder why the rest of the world hates them??
I really doubt if either britain or american will be out of iraq soon. they have not stripped the oil feilds yet of enough revnues to pay for their high life styles. Nor have they secured yet enough of the spoils of the war.
It matters little to the aministrators how many innocent lives (from all sides) have been wasted.
Just look at how bush pushes off that lady who camps out at his farm??
I mean...if he cared one bit for his own fellow countrymen...he certainly would not treat them in such manner.
He and the other world power leaders care only for their own pockets and their comfy life styles. and how to support that life style.
May Allah help us all.
Lulua.
Netcurtains3
28-09-2005, 12:34
Indeed, the current situation is rediculous.
The UN needs reform. China should not be at the "top table"
until its democractic, it should really be replaced by India.
France and the UK should be amalgamated into an EU seat.
Brazil and Indonesia should potentially be on the "top table"
(providing democracy looks sound in these places). Currently the
middle east should possibly be represented on the "top table" in a provisional sense, by Turkey and or Iran (but not sure about this) because Egypt is not really democratic.
We really need a good framework for settling international disputes.
The "oil" thing. Since you think we're going to get a big wad of cash from iraq oil, do you know what date it might be arriving as all we are seeing over here are huge bills to heat our homes and run are transport. Old people are now ending up in prison because they no longer can cope. There might have been many reasons for going into Iraq, but making money out of it sure isn't one of them. :0)
In an ideal world I'd like to see Blair resign and stand for election in Iraq in a head to head match against the lead "terrorist/freedom fighter". In this way at least we'd both have a rough and ready idea of what we are talking about.
Net.
Basically, really the money to be had in Iraq is being pocketed by those least deserving. The oil cartel ppl. Those in charge.
surely, u don't think or imagine that they would distribute it to the normal folks??
Lulua.
Netcurtains3
29-09-2005, 08:21
BP, Shell, Texaco?
What assets did they have in Iraq BEFORE war and what do they have now?
For your theory to be correct there will be some identifiable companies in the USA and UK that we can discuss who have PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS.
Thinking about your theory, there might be something in it. For example the countries that lose money by the invasion - namely France and Russia - have been against it. So logically, I can see that countries that might theorectically gain money out of it might be in favour.
On the other hand, it might not be "gainers", it might be countries "that lose the least".
Tell us more about your money theory, I'm listening.
Net
Dear Netcurtains:
Since you're into this stock exchanges and markets, here's a tip:
http://www.gregpalast.com/opeconthemarch.html
You may use it to your advantage.
Ma'a-salaama,
Netcurtains3
29-09-2005, 14:27
The report says "secret plan to sell off".
However what I want is information on actual sell-offs and the prices paid. Facts in other words of what really is happening rather then rumours or plans.
Anyone can have a plan, carrying out a plan is a totally different kettle of fish.
The obvious problem with any cheap sell off is that eventually peace will occur in Iraq and the Iraqi's will simply renationalise the assets. This has happened over and over again in neo-colonist regimes. So the "sell off" secret plan would seem to be historically flawed.
Sorry, next.
Net.
Netcurtains3
29-09-2005, 14:46
I'll give you a clue to help.
For every barrell of oil sold a percentage of the money for that oil stays in the country of origin - often via a form of "tax".
What your really should be concentrating on is what is happening to this "tax" money - sell offs is for kids who believe any old nonsense conspiracy theories.
Net.
Dear Netcurtains:
Remember the saying "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire"? There are too many raging fires!
Didn't I tell you about Labour Party's Conference? Too many cronies around to save Tony...
Ma'a-salaama,
Netcurtains3
01-10-2005, 10:48
Metro paper, a day after the labour conference, had a picture of UK soldiers pulling out of Basra and handing their bases over to the Iraqi' army.
For all we know (there is some secrecy), the UK might be ALREADY leaving Iraq. How do we know for sure one way or the other? Certainly pictures like this (so soon after the police station incident) give the impression we are slowly leaving, or gearing up to leave.
Net.
Dear Netcurtains:
Perhaps on the army that's so, but Tony didn't leave ;)
I call it redeployment and consolidation of positions. Keep the new Iraqi army recruits on harm's way and save our men!
If you'd been in the army that's the interpretation you'd make. Secret, conspiracious withdrawals aren't possible as they may be noted by the Iraqi resistance!
Ma'a-salaama,
Netcurtains...perhaps that is exactly what the administration wants the british public to think...that they have or are pulling out.
Quite convenient, really.
To stay in there, keep their firm hand on all things...yet to quiet down the masses by a few pic's that are supposed to be worth a thousand words.
Believe me, if there was a pullout...either by US or Britain...there would be some major news reports on it.
Lulua.
Maryam1445
31-10-2005, 11:13
'afwan...
i dont know much about Zarqawi
but i heart about him from non moeslim american that related to alqaeda osmah bin laden and terorist.
so any one tell me : Who is Zarqawi truely?
jazakumullah khair
s3 sr:
Welcome to myiwc.com. Apparently Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a a jordanian that was fighting the peshmerga, communist and nationalist kurdish militia in Northern Kurdistan. It's said he lost his leg.
Some of the worst atrocities in Iraq, usually against civilians, are blamed onto al-Zarqawi's group. He's been an excuse to americans to destroy the city of minarets, Fallujah in Iraq, and many of operations carried out by them and their allies in Iraq, normally are said to be for flushing al-Qaeda elements linked to al-Zarqawi. They usually say that iraqis love them, it's just these foreign elements like al-Zarqawi that are causing all violence in Iraq.
The question is does he really exist? Or is he just an excuse to perpuate the occupation of Iraq? Who really is using unwanton violence against civilians and lately against shias? Whom would a civil war between sunnis and shias benefit?
Ma'a-salaama,
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.