Zarqawi’s top aide is off to his virgins:
The No. 2 al Qaeda leader in Iraq was killed Sunday night, U.S. officials say. Abu Azzam, reportedly the deputy to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was shot during a house rain in Baghdad, according to Pentagon officials.
As the aide to Zarqawi, Azzam was reportedly in control of financing foreign fighters coming into Iraq, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.
According to Pentagon officials coalition troops raided the house in response to a tip. When Azzam opened fire, these officials say, he was killed with troops’ return fire.
Also, Michael Moore’s minutemen are up to their usual mayhem and murder:
brazen attack on a school killed five teachers. Police say gunmen disguised as police officers snatched the five Shiite teachers and their driver off a minibus leaving the school. Officials say the militants took the victims into the school and shot them in a classroom.
Keep it up, you’ll get your right wing traffic back soon.
Any thouhgts on the Pats/Steelers clock controversy I posted in the Steelers thread?
It’s all our fault.
If there were no Americans or Jews anywhere in the world they’d all be planting flowers and singing “We are the World”.
What does that supposed to mean?
Whoops, I guess ended up on the Little Green Footballs page by accident.
Yawn. Believe this like I believe the daily “senior Hamas leader killed” reports out of Gaza/WB. How many deputies does this guy have? One less from 200?
Can someone show me when Michael Moore said that people like these guys were minutemen? Or more importantly, can someone show me what _context_ he used that in? I don’t recall Moore ever being a hateful person that would really suggest that murdering school teachers is ever OK. Then again, I thought he was pro-gun, but then I read a review of Bowling for Columbine (never saw it, of course) and realize he’s a liberal POS who wants to ban every weapon down toothpicks.
It could just be a case of misrepresentation. I mean, after all, somehow the MSM twisted “take out” to mean “assassinate” not long ago! :)
srv, I’m much in agreement.
Has anyone else noticed how many #2 Al Qaeda guys we seem to kill in Iraq?
Apparently, those guys aren’t really trying harder after all.
Michael Moore is a politically biased fat guy who makes tendentious films.
It follows logically that he is responsible for this massacre.
Can you give your loyal followers a clue about why you referred to Michael Moore in this context?
Ya, we know your eye’s and fingers burned doing that DougJ. Careful next time. This stuff is for grown ups don’thca know.
Otherwise back to regular post glee of another one biting the dust. Sleep well Abu Azzam and may all your 72 look like
Article on foreign fighters http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html
I am always thrilled to kill al-Qaeda’s top deputy, no matter how many times it occurs.
Obviously, Al Qaeda is structured like a large Wall Street firm where everybody is a vice president. Or perhaps like a movie production company, where everybody under the executive producer is a producer.
You can’t be serious, Narv?
He was tired of smearing Cindy?
Well, it’s on fatboy’s website:
I’ll assume you can ascertain the context.
This guy might be a bigger catch than Zarqawi in terms of disrupting operations. Zarqawi’s like a more active Osama: basically an inspirational figurehead. He can sneak around, give orders, and rally the troops here and there, but he needs others to coordinate day-to-day operations. Losing the main money-handling guy is a blow.
John – Can you give your loyal followers a clue about why you referred to Michael Moore in this context?
My guess would be because it tends to exemplify how self-evidently absurd Moore’s characterization of them as “Minutemen” was.
Obviously, Al Qaeda is structured like a large Wall Street firm where everybody is a vice president.
More like one where the VP gets killed every week.
I can just picture the boardroom:
“Congrats, you’re our new VP.”
“What?? No, YOU be the new VP!”
“Me??? NO frickin’ way! You have seniority, it’s YOUR job now!”
“OK, there’s only way to settle this… 1,2,3, not it!”
From the Wikipedia article on the Revolutionary War:
Things aren’t simple.
Michael Moore is a self-promoting cage rattler, the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. If you find yourself fretting about what either of them have to say, punch up your work load. You don’t have enough to occupy your time. That, or you are doing a little cage rattling yourself.
And for my comparative religion edification, how do the 70 virgins qualify for their “prize”?
If your going to link to your blog when you at least have someting interesting drivel or a new post that furthers the topic. Good grief what ever happened to blogging 101.
Back On Topic: I agree with the above comment by TallDave that a money bag guy is much bigger catch right now than Z-man himself.
Well, it’s on fatboy’s website:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin’ weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
I’ll assume you can ascertain the context.”
Gee, I think that counts….
You could try here.
What part of an insurgency don’t you morons understand?
We, the US, are an occupying power. Alot of Iraqis don’t want us there. They want us out. Kinda like we wanted the British out. No, George Washington wasn’t Saddam. But Saddam didn’t massacre damn near all of his indiginous people.
You stupid, *stupid* fucking morons.
Things aren’t simple.
Some things aren’t as complicated as people make out.
Life was brutal back then; that kind of thing was common even in the most “civilized” countries. You show me the tiniest shred of evidence that Michael Moore’s “Minutemen” have any of the commitment to democracy and individual rights of America’s founders, to go along with the concomitant violence.
We know what they want for Iraq. It ain’t freedom or democracy. It’s more headchopping and oppression.
I believe that you have a new commenter (Epoh!) here, and unfortunately he is yet another
Enh, at least they don’t buy and sell human beings as chattel. Besides, when did you righties start caring about individual rights when there was a war on?
Alot of Iraqis don’t want us there
A lot of them do. Their elected gov’t wants us to stay.
Kinda like we wanted the British out
We overthrew a nonrepresentative British gov’t and gave democracy to Americans. You think your Iraqi insurgents have anything like that in mind?
But Saddam didn’t massacre damn near all of his indiginous people.
The regime executed 300,000 indigenous people. That’s in a country of 25 million. That’s besides 1.1 million killed in the Iran-Iraq war.
You stupid, stupid fucking morons
Check the mirror, pal. The real, legitimate, patriotic revolutionaries in Iraq are the elected gov’t and those supporting democracy. What the hell do you think your openly fascist “revolutionaries” want to do with Iraq?
Enh, ever heard about the Civil War?
I’d like to be convinced that it’s even happened once, at this point. I was more convinced when there was only evidence that we’d done it once…somewhere along the line, the repeated terminations of money men and other top associates became somewhat incredible after the ninth or tenth “second in command”.
Does it matter in the least that Moore was referring to the limited uprising from Sadr after a pro-Sadr newspaper was closed and a meaningless warrant was issued for his arrest, and not the al-Qaeda terrorists that are targetting teachers, children, and other innocents?
I mean, if that’s the quote we’re going with.
Patrick, TallDave, et al –
1. I used to always disagree with you. Now I’ll have to change that to almost.
2. I have been sympathetic to Moore’s political stance although I find him repellent as a person. Well repellent is an exaggeration, but I don’t like him much.
3. I was unaware of that stupid, disgusting quotation. This is a MAJOR shark jump.
Yeah, TallDave, at least they never chopped down a cherry tree! Ever think of that? Huh???
Oh, excellent! You have enlightened me, surely. Now, can you explain exactly which ones those are? The followers of Al Sadr? Or the followers of Al Sistani? Are we in bed with the Iranians this week — they have a great record of democracy, don’t they? Or are we in bed with the Iranians? Or in bed with the Iranians?
Gee, TD — I don’t see a lot of revolutionaries in that pack with a deep commitment to individual rights. Am I missing something?
Enh, at least they don’t buy and sell human beings as chattel.
Sure they do. They kidnap people and sell them for ransom.
Besides, when did you righties start caring about individual rights when there was a war on?
I’m mostly a libertarian, so individual rights is the most important aspect of this war for me.
Oh, yes, Muqtata bin Sadr is definitely defensible. I mean, he hasn’t murdered any Iraqi policemen in…why, it must be at least, four hours.
Or the followers of Al Sistani?
You mean the guy who keeps saying keep religion out of politics, and insisted on early elections?
Am I missing something?
Yeah, the Iraqi Constitution.
All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
(A) Public and private freedoms shall be protected.
(B) The right of free expression shall be protected.
(C) The right of free peaceable assembly and the right to join associations freely, as well as the right to form and join unions and political parties freely, in accordance with the law, shall be guaranteed.
(D) Each Iraqi has the right of free movement in all parts of Iraq and the right to travel abroad and return freely.
(E) Each Iraqi has the right to demonstrate and strike peaceably in accordance with the law.
(F) Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.
(G) Slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude with or without pay, shall be forbidden.
(H) Each Iraqi has the right to privacy.
The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.
Thomas Jefferson had slaves.
Saddam Hussein did not. Hell, neither did Stalin.
Clearly, Saddam and Stalin are the moral betters of Thomas Jefferson.
TD…have you ever read the Brezhnev era constitution of the Soviet Union? You really ought to do so.
Okay, so by “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation,” he just meant the ones that rose up and went over to the keyboard. Those are the Minutemen. As in “words per minute,” not “shots per minute.” See, it was all just a big misunderstanding, everybody.
Uh, yeah. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement. They want us to prop them up against their enemies.
TD, do you really believe that the government is really committed to Western democracy, that it isn’t going to become an arena of religious and tribal factionalism as soon as it stabilizes (if that’s the word)?
You might want to rethink the wording here. Who is “we” and why are “we” distinguished from “Americans”?
And you believe they will adhere to the plain language because..?
Sounds great, less fulfilling. I’m very, very skeptical. (Sounds like Elmer Fudd, doesn’t it.)
That quote from Moore is from a year and a half ago! I seriously doubt he (or anyone else who wants to be taken seriously) would come out with something like that after what has unfolded since then.
But that’s the risk when you’re a loudmouth. Something you say, or put on your website, will come back and bite you. In this case Moore earned this scorn. Sure it’s out of context, and JC is really stretching just to drag Moore in and fire up the comments, but Moore DID say it.
That comment was “defensible” very early on in the conflict. I’d have to say it was past its expiration date when it appeared on Moore’s site, and if he repeated it today, he’d be flat out wrong and an asshole.
No, it wasn’t. Al Sadr’s followers rose up and rioted for four days. The only thing that showed was that we didn’t have enough troops on the ground…not that Sadr was anything other than a demagogue and a thug.
Sheesh……that’s pretty fucking harsh John!
I suppose because I opposed this middle-east debacle called a war, I too am responsible in your eyes for this “mayhem and murder?”
Ah, fuck it, never mind……I don’t care.
I mean “defensible” as far as Iraqis defending their homes and country against an invading and occupying foreign army. Yeah, early on the constant reference to those who attacked American troops (or defended themselves) as “terrorists” was as misleading then, as calling them Minute Men now.
True, it wasn’t long before the “insurgency” turned into something else and Moore failed to adapt his rhetoric, but it started out based on a debateable, if not defensible position.
I will buy that, but I don’t think that Moore meant that. He talked, quite directly, about the paper’s closure, and Sadr’s arrest warrant. Problem is that the paper was publishing sedition, and Sadr seems to have been knowlingly involved in murders. That being the case, no, Moore was not right or justified in defending him or his militia.
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Its no use arguing with this crowd because you see becasue for them America’s attaacking a soverign nation that had not attacked us is good and the people fighting back are terrorists. Its as simple as that.
Of course there are atrocities committed in war. On both sides. In every war. With all nations. It is the nature of war. And no, I am not making every one equally guility but you guys are so black and white. Try, just try, looking at this from a moderate Muslim’s perspective. The powerful armies of the United States and Great Britan are occupying a Muslim country (one that happens to have the second largest oil reserves). Now console yourself with the belief that we are there to “liberate” the people and give them freedom if you want, but that would have been more believable had it not been the fourth or firth stated reason why we decided to invade prior to the war. You insult their (and your own) intelligence when you spout nonsense like that, especially when they very well know our special relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordon all famous bastions of Jeffersonian Democracy.
Exactly. I’m sure that there are many people in the armed forces right now who really do believe that democracy can exist in Iraq, and are working with that goal in mind. However, as far as the U.S. administration is concerned, I think a very large number of people are skeptical of their motives for being in Iraq, because the rationale for it has changed so often. We had:
a) Iraq was involved in 9-11 and had WMD’s.
b) Iraq harboured terrorists, and had “WMD-related activities.”
c) Saddam is an evil man, and we must topple his government.
d) We must free the Iraqi people from Saddam, and we will be greeted as liberators.
e) We must instill democracy in Iraq, because it will then influence other countries.
f) We have to stay now, because otherwise, the soldiers we’ve already lost will have died in vain.
I’ve probably missed a few there…please forgive any ommissions.
Is it any wonder that so many people are now saying, “Uh-huh….sure….tell us another one.”? As soon as one rationale has been proven false, they come up with another one, which strangely enough, they had NEVER mentioned, prior to the change of rationale.
And as far as the spreading of democracy and women’s rights, I think it’s pretty damned rich that the U.S. used this as a rationale for Iraq, and yet they won’t dare say anything to their bestest friend, Saudi Arabia, for its horrible record on human rights.
No. I’d grant you that “One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s insurgent“, but that’s as far as I’d go.
The UN actually defined terrorism last fall. The working paper distinguished between unconventional warfare and terrorism. Unconventional warfare involves combattants who don’t meet the standard requirements of the Geneva conventions, but who primarily aim to harm enemy combattants or military institutions. Terrorism aims primarily to harm civilian institutions and civilians.
You’re deliberately confusing the two classes, and they are different. Killing school teachers is terrorism, not unconventional warfare. Planting IEDs to attack APC’s is unconventional warfare – and is really not too different from planting remote controlled anti-tank mines. There’s a difference, and it’s disingenuous to pretend there isn’t.
Even if you choose to think your argument is designed with high-minded idealism and moral conduct in mind, it can also have the unintended effect of diminishing the potential for small gains that are being made in the world today. I will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt as to your aims being noble.
For example, the US does get on SA’s case about their abysmal human rights record, and has been doing so for decades. The changes that have come, have all been since the invasion of Iraq. They are not enough. If we were to invade SA it would be a worldwide war, as all Muslims are required by their faith to protect the ‘holy land’. Not something to try to have happen, IMO.
The argument that we should not seek to effect change, especially through violence, unless we are willing to do so in ALL places that have horrible human rights records, can be followed to the logical extension that we will never do anything about any of them.
War sucks. However, it is often war that is the vehicle for the betterment of the human condition among certain populations. I believe this will be the case in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
DG – Good point made. I certainly don’t think that war with Saudi Arabia is the answer, however, I really don’t think that the US has gotten on S.A.’s case nearly enough. They’re acting more like the indulgent buddy, “C’mon, man…you probably shouldn’t be doing that.” Basically, if the U.S. is mostly turning a blind eye to S.A.’s treatment of women, then it shouldn’t be using human rights as a rationale to attack somewhere else. It exposes them to a charge of hypocrisy.
And of course I think we should try to affect change around the world, in order to protect human rights. And I don’t doubt that there are many, many people and agencies in the U.S. that are working diligently towards that very thing. But Bush’s concern for human rights just rings a bit hollow — if he was so concerned for the rights of the Iraqis, why did he not talk about it until the other rationales for this war had been disproven, or were no longer considered acceptable?
It may expose the US to hypocrisy, but the list of countries one should go after is very large indeed. Too large for sure for this country to be able to handle at all once, or even one at a time, even if we were inclined to do so, which we don’t seem to be. I wonder if any other countries would like to take one on. Somehow, I doubt it.
As to the Bush issue, you may be right, but the fact is that, that particular ship has already sailed. Iraq is already invaded and the democratic reforms are moving ahead. At this point the ends are really what we must be concerned with, even if the reasons were shit to begin with, a position which is debatable.
Canada helped in Afghanistan, it is a shame she would not in Iraq.
There was quite a bit of debate about that here. There was a contingent (mostly in Alberta), who wanted to go into Iraq. However, most Canadians (including our government), were not convinced that Iraq had WMDs and/or was an imminent threat. The whole “you’re with us, or you’re against us” rhetoric of the U.S. government really sealed the deal for us — it was very heavy-handed, felt like a threat, and it insulted a lot of people here. We felt that we’d been there for the U.S. on many occasions in the past, and had been a good ally, and yet we were being treated like we were supporting the enemy, just because we wanted more proof.
Participating in Afghanistan was never debated here. I don’t think too many other countries disagreed with engaging Afghanistan — you guys had a boatload of support on that one. But Canada’s role in the world is that of the peacekeeper, and we couldn’t participate in good conscience without irrefutable proof that Iraq was an imminent danger.
Yes, absolutely we have to be concerned about the ends. I think a lot of us are just skeptical of the motives of the people who are engineering these aforementioned ends. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
You did miss a couple, how about reading this.
It’s the Iraq War Resolution from 10/10/2002.
Then I’m baffled by any support for this Administration, given what is still happening to Jose Padilla.
There you have it, folks.
War = Betterment
If you need to understand where these morons are coming from, you need look no further.
They have the answer to the age old question:
War. What is it good for?
Now you know. Apologies to Edwin Starr.
The mind boggles at the things you see in this blog.
“Yeah, this war may have been started as a bad idea, but it’s okay as long as there is betterment of the human condition.”
Ends Justify Means, which is basically the end of the American Experiment.
Ends Justify Means!
Your right on the part about what “you see in this blog” observation.
Your alternative is what? Lawyers and catch and release program after they have been rehabilitated? Inquiring minds want to know.
Really Narvy. Why don’t you go over and talk to them. Pick a spot and take a trip than do a little tour of the mountains in eastern Afghanistand and the tribal areas in Pakistan and come back us and tell us how you made out. Deal?
This is the only answer to a question you will get out of me today, so chew on it for as long as you like, because I will not have a conversation with you:
The alternative to “Ends Justify Means” is that “Ends Do Not Justify Means.”
What that translates into in terms of policy in general, and the war in particular, should be obvious, but I take nothing for granted where you are concerned.
If you find any of thathard to understand, please go elsewhere for further elucidation. Our time is up for today.