NationStates Jolt Archive

This interesting little analysis came out on the day before the news of his death broke. Read it through to the end...

Zarqawi Scheduled for Martyrdom

June 7, 2006: The relationship between terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi and and the mainline al Qaeda leadership continues to deteriorate. Zarqawi's recent audio messages have not only attacked the U.S. and the Shia-dominated government in Iraq, but also Iran. He's even claiming that the U.S., Iran, and Shia in general, are in cahoots to destroy Islam. He has also called for continued attacks against Shia.

Except for his verbal attacks on the U.S. and the Iraqi government, he is almost totally distanced himself from the central leadership. Other al Qaeda leaders have been trying to down play anti-Iranian and anti-Shia rhetoric, and have been strongly discouraging attacks on civilians.

Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda's efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future. If handled right it can be made to look like he went out in a blaze of glory fighting American troops or that he was foully murdered. Either way, al Qaeda gets rid of a problem and gains another "martyr."

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060607.aspx

So, what do you think: did US forces actually get the little SOB straight up or was he set up by Al Qaeda?

I smell a conspiracy theory. ;)

We got him.

I smell a conspiracy theory. ;)

Oh. I thought that was just me not having changed my socks.

He was betrayed by Al-Qaeda. At least, it says so on CNN.

I smell a conspiracy theory.

Not exactly, at least not from me. Although I can see some saying that AQ killed him and the US forces are taking credit. I think this was just a case of AQ "dropping a dime", so to speak.

We got him.

Not saying we didn't. The question is was he set up by AQ. It's fairly common for two competing factions on one side of an insurgency to set up somone from the competing faction and thus have the bad guys do their dirty work.

I smell a conspiracy theory. ;)

for what it's worth, google cached that page before the news broke.

and we know that one of the purposes of the zarqawi psyop program was to drive a wedge into the various resistance forces. looks like it worked - cause somebody ratted him out.

I smell a conspiracy theory.

Not exactly, at least not from me. Although I can see some saying that AQ killed him and the US forces are taking credit. I think this was just a case of AQ "dropping a dime", so to speak.

We got him.

Not saying we didn't. The question is was he set up by AQ. It's fairly common for two competing factions on one side of an insurgency to set up somone from the competing faction and thus have the bad guys do their dirty work.

reading anti-war, are we?

He was betrayed by Al-Qaeda. At least, it says so on CNN.

Excellent. Strategypage does another one. :D

reading anti-war, are we?
:confused:

The terrorists have managed to kill many people (mostly defenceless people), but they have failed to achieve any of their political, or strategic goals, and have no prospect of ever doing so. To suggest that such a pack of failures is smart enough to set one of their own up for death is nonsensical.

So far they are saying excactly that...his own guys reported on him...seems killing moslems got to be unpopular among his own people...especially when there are hundreds of thousands of Americans to shoot at..

The terrorists have managed to kill many people (mostly defenceless people), but they have failed to achieve any of their political, or strategic goals, and have no prospect of ever doing so. To suggest that such a pack of failures is smart enough to set one of their own up for death is nonsensical.

You really think people who pulled 9/11 aren't smart enough to pick up the phone and rat somebody out?

Mmmm... the first would be a fair bit more difficult to pull off, would it not?

:confused:

i saw this at antiwar.com's blog earlier (and then posted it in the monster thread, where it quickly got buried)

i saw this at antiwar.com's blog earlier (and then posted it in the monster thread, where it quickly got buried)

Ah. I was wondering if this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446602590/103-9216513-0215067?v=glance&n=283155) was want you meant. For whatever odd reason that was what came to mind first, I was wracking my brains trying to remember if there was a relevant chapter in there. :D

Nope. Strategypage is on my daily surfing list. I read it there on Tuesday.


BTW, the message board there has a good thread on this http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-43238.asp

Let them cave in on each other.

Savages.

The Times has devoted an entire story on the nature of the rift between Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda leadership, and the Sunni insurgency more generally:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2218027,00.html

"ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI, whose atrocities pushed Iraq to the very brink of civil war, was hunted down and killed after being betrayed by members of his own terrorist organisation.

The head of al-Qaeda in Iraq was tracked to a village north of Baghdad thanks to tips from disaffected Sunni insurgents, military sources told The Times.

Al-Zarqawi died on Wednesday night when two US Air Force F16 jets dropped a pair of 500lb bombs on his safe house in Hibhib, a backwater surrounded by date orchards. Al-Zarqawi’s deputy and spiritual adviser, Abu Abdul Rahman, also died along with five others who have yet to be identified.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, said the $25 million (£13.5m) bounty on al-Zarqawi’s head would be paid.

For months a rift had been growing between al-Zarqawi’s foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents. The dissidents apparently believed that the tactics of the Jordanian, who kidnapped, beheaded and bombed at will, were too extreme, and wanted to join the political process.

“Some of the insurgent groups’ disgust for al-Zarqawi’s behaviour . . . coupled with our dogged pursuit most certainly played into the taking down of al-Zarqawi,” a US officer said as Iraqi and coalition leaders enjoyed their most successful 24 hours since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003.

“The deal was that these Sunnis would help to hand al-Zarqawi over, so from then on it was all very carefully planned,” another official said.

A British government source said he hoped that the knowledge that there were moles within al-Qaeda’s upper ranks would “sow the seeds of doubt within its leadership” and undermine it further."

Let them cave in on each other.

Savages.
What exactly makes them less human than us? Or savages as you put it.

Well, it might possibly be their habit of slaughtering people for doing such evil things as standing at markets.

You really think people who pulled 9/11 aren't smart enough to pick up the phone and rat somebody out?

That's not all they'd have to do, they'd have to do it in such a way as to:

a) Avoid the US attack, I don't imaging Zarqawi advertised his location to all and sundry, so the "rats" would have had to be close to him, and;

b) Avoid revenge attacks from Zarqawi's own people.

This notion of al-Qaeda being responsible for Zarqawi's death is not serious, it is merely al-Qaeda and its apologists trying to place a positive spin on Zarqawi's death.

I'd say the real story here is that al-Qaeda is worried, and it should be. While some of their major operatives have survived, al-Qaeda is failing everywhere. It had achieved nothing before 9/11 except co-opting the Taliban (for all the good that did them), and since they've seen their support drop all over the Muslim world.

We got him.

*grin*

What exactly makes them less human than us? Or savages as you put it.

Um....video taping the slow decapitation of non-combatants?

The terrorists have managed to kill many people (mostly defenceless people), but they have failed to achieve any of their political, or strategic goals, and have no prospect of ever doing so. To suggest that such a pack of failures is smart enough to set one of their own up for death is nonsensical.
So because they have yet to accomplish what you think they ought to be aiming for, they're too stupid to pull off getting rid of one of their own? What a pathetically narrow view of the world you have. And it explains your comments in so many other threads as well.

So because they have yet to accomplish what you think they ought to be aiming for

They're pretty clear about their aims. Announcing them makes their aims quite clear.

they're too stupid to pull off getting rid of one of their own?

As I said (and you, being "pathetically narrow, refused to read), that's not all they would have had to do.

For a second time, Zarqawi was not stupid enough to leave forwarding addresses to anyone who asked, anyone ratting him out would have had to be close to him, and any information they could provide would have had a very short usable life. They would have to make a tip that was good, while being far enough away to avoid a US strike.

They would also have had to do this without arousing the suspicion of Zarqawi's associates.

As to "pathetically narrow", if you can't see this, you're the one who's "pathetically narrow".

If they wanted to get rid of him, why would a pack of animals dedicated to killing not simply bump him off. If you are out to kill someone, the paramount consideration is that the bastard actually die. Are you so stupid that you can't see that making a phone call, and hoping for the best is not exactly certain. The second consideration in killing is getting away with it, and I have twice described the problems in getting away with this.


Some of the assumptions made to support this theory hold little water. Other terrorist gangs in Iraq did not like Zarqawi, but these people don't exactly hold conferences together. A terrorist gang tends to be comparmentalised inside, that they would be in contact with these groups in such a way as to allow these groups to act against him, or provide information good enough to enable others to act is simple nonsense.

Like I said:

I find it strange that the man had a recognizable face and a head still attached after having 2 500-lb bombs dropped on him.

Like I said:

I find it strange that the man had a recognizable face and a head still attached after having 2 500-lb bombs dropped on him.

You can be within 15 feet of a 500-lb bomb detonation, and as long as you're not hit by a chunk of the casing, you may survive (MAYBE). Less than half of the bomb's weight is actual explosive.

Some news report sources say he was alive briefly after the hit. Mortally wounded, but not quite dead.

When people die in combat, it's not usually the instant thing that you might imagine. Lots of agony, dismemberment, etc.

You can be within 15 feet of a 500-lb bomb detonation, and as long as you're not hit by a chunk of the casing, you may survive (MAYBE). Less than half of the bomb's weight is actual explosive.

Some news report sources say he was alive briefly after the hit. Mortally wounded, but not quite dead.

When people die in combat, it's not usually the instant thing that you might imagine. Lots of agony, dismemberment, etc.

15 feet? I dont know about that.

15 feet? I dont know about that.

As long as you're in the prone. Or have a lucky intervening obstacle that absorbs most of the blast.

There was a Special Forces team in Afghanistan during the early days there, and they accidentally put a 2000-lb bomb down within 30 ft of their own position. Some were killed, some were not.

That's why they made cluster bombs - the chances of a HE bomb killing exposed troops is lower than expected.

HE bombs don't have antipersonnel enhancements. They are made to destroy point targets like armored vehicles and buildings.

As long as you're in the prone. Or have a lucky intervening obstacle that absorbs most of the blast.

There was a Special Forces team in Afghanistan during the early days there, and they accidentally put a 2000-lb bomb down within 30 ft of their own position. Some were killed, some were not.

That's why they made cluster bombs - the chances of a HE bomb killing exposed troops is lower than expected.

HE bombs don't have antipersonnel enhancements. They are made to destroy point targets like armored vehicles and buildings.

Maybe, but I doubt a guy who didnt see the attack coming would be in prone. And what he would suffer more damage from is the house itself. I dont think the house could have absorbed the blast as much.

This notion of al-Qaeda being responsible for Zarqawi's death is not serious, it is merely al-Qaeda and its apologists trying to place a positive spin on Zarqawi's death.


LOL!!!! I'd hardly call Jim Dunnigan (the author of the Strategypage web site) an AQ apologist. Now you're just being silly.

Maybe, but I doubt a guy who didnt see the attack coming would be in prone. And what he would suffer more damage from is the house itself. I dont think the house could have absorbed the blast as much.
The house was made of stone, which has a tendency to redirect the blast in surprising ways before it blows over.

HE bombs kill primarily through changes in overpressure, and humans are surprisingly resistant to changes in overpressure that will demolish buildings.

The rubble falling on him probably hurt him more (stone chunks falling from the sky).

Well, it might possibly be their habit of slaughtering people for doing such evil things as standing at markets.



That's not all they'd have to do, they'd have to do it in such a way as to:

a) Avoid the US attack, I don't imaging Zarqawi advertised his location to all and sundry, so the "rats" would have had to be close to him, and;

b) Avoid revenge attacks from Zarqawi's own people.

This notion of al-Qaeda being responsible for Zarqawi's death is not serious, it is merely al-Qaeda and its apologists trying to place a positive spin on Zarqawi's death.

I'd say the real story here is that al-Qaeda is worried, and it should be. While some of their major operatives have survived, al-Qaeda is failing everywhere. It had achieved nothing before 9/11 except co-opting the Taliban (for all the good that did them), and since they've seen their support drop all over the Muslim world.

The guy is hated in Iraq, and has been distancing himself from the Al-Qaeda leadership for some time now as being counter-productive to global jihad, his coordination of the bombings in Annan recently for instance lost him Al-Qaeda a lot of potential supporters and crushed a lot of general sympathy for international terror. It is being reported that British intelligence figures are stating that he was betrayed by Sunni insurgents in a number of media outlets. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

This notion of al-Qaeda being responsible for Zarqawi's death is not serious, it is merely al-Qaeda and its apologists trying to place a positive spin on Zarqawi's death.



Actually we're just interested in discovering what actually happened. Also I fail to see how an admission that there are divisions and possible turncoats in the upper ranks of Al-Qaeda is putting a positive spin on anything, quite the opposite I would say.

IF this was AlQ betraying one of its own who wasn't playing by their rules then waht will they do with the reward money?

IF this was AlQ betraying one of its own who wasn't playing by their rules then waht will they do with the reward money?

Al Maliki has promised to honour the reward pledge, although apparently there were multiple sources of information. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.

I think you can be sure that whoever the money goes to will be using some of it to buy arms. I certainly would if I lived in Iraq.

While it does make sense for the British Government to say that the information came from within, its actually happening doesn't make sense because there is no reason to believe these people were working together, especially since they, as you pointed out, didn't like each other. If someone was ratting on him, they would have had to be close enough to provide timely information, yet be able to discretly distance himself from the strike without being suspicious.

A man who was not terribly close would be far away enough to survive a strike, but his distance would make whatever information he could provide possibly dubious, probably outdated background information.

All quite simple, and logical.

It further seems to me that is one wanted to kill Zarqawi, making phone calls to the US is one of the least certain methods one can use.

If you want to kill someone, it is quite obvious that the paramount consideration is the death of that someone, if they really wanted him dead, they would not have done it that way. It is too complicated, too risky, and too uncertain, especially for a bunch of savages dedicated to murder.

While it does make sense for the British Government to say that the information came from within, its actually happening doesn't make sense because there is no reason to believe these people were working together, especially since they, as you pointed out, didn't like each other. If someone was ratting on him, they would have had to be close enough to provide timely information, yet be able to discretly distance himself from the strike without being suspicious.

A man who was not terribly close would be far away enough to survive a strike, but his distance would make whatever information he could provide possibly dubious, probably outdated background information.

All quite simple, and logical.

It further seems to me that is one wanted to kill Zarqawi, making phone calls to the US is one of the least certain methods one can use.

If you want to kill someone, it is quite obvious that the paramount consideration is the death of that someone, if they really wanted him dead, they would not have done it that way. It is too complicated, too risky, and too uncertain, especially for a bunch of savages dedicated to murder.

For goodness sake it's possible to be personally close to someone, know their routine, movements and location without being physically close to them all the time.There are plenty of people in my life who I feel "close to" and would you believe that they're not all huddled around me whilst I'm typing this.

For goodness sake it's possible to be personally close to someone, know their routine, movements and location without being physically close to them all the time.There are plenty of people in my life who I feel "close to" and would you believe that they're not all huddled around me whilst I'm typing this.

Why would someone who has effectively been on the run for three years have such people in his life?

Zarqawi was intelligent, and careful enough to avoid death or capture for over three years. The idea that someone intelligent enough to do that is also stupid enough to take the sort of risks you describe is a non-starter.

You may well have people who, while being far away, know a great deal about you, and your habits, but you are not on the run from the US Armed Forces, or the Iraqi security services, or rival terrorist groups.

Why would someone who has effectively been on the run for three years have such people in his life?

Zarqawi was intelligent, and careful enough to avoid death or capture for over three years. The idea that someone intelligent enough to do that is also stupid enough to take the sort of risks you describe is a non-starter.

You may well have people who, while being far away, know a great deal about you, and your habits, but you are not on the run from the US Armed Forces, or the Iraqi security services, or rival terrorist groups.

Being intelligent doesn't make you immune from betrayal.

Do you not realise how utterly ridiculous it is to say that a person could not possibly have given away Zarqawi's location without being stood right next to him when the bombs came a dropping? The fact that he was receiving correspondence from Al-zawahiri makes this a non-starter. Do you really feel that this guy is able to orchestrate bombings not only throughout Iraq but as far afield as Annan without making contacts?

Being intelligent doesn't make you immune from betrayal.

No, but the chances are not at all good.

Do you not realise how utterly ridiculous it is to say that a person could not possibly have given away Zarqawi's location without being stood right next to him when the bombs came a dropping?

He had been effectively on the run for over three years. Do you think he left forwarding addresses?

The fact that he was receiving correspondence from Al-zawahiri makes this a non-starter.

Apparantly you do. Do you think al-Zawahiri was sending him notes that had to be physically delivered through the normal postal system.

Anything that would be sent to him would be going through a series of cut-outs, and dead drops.

Do you really feel that this guy is able to orchestrate bombings not only throughout Iraq but as far afield as Annan without making contacts?

His contacts need not know where he is, and in any situation in which might need to, they didn't need to know where he would usually be.

Do you think he invited people over to his house for meetings?

You are also leaving out the fact that anyone betraying Zarqawi would not only have to avoid a US strike, but any revenge attacks.

The theory that he was betrayed relies on Zarqawi not taking the most basic security precautions (remember that he was a trained terrorist leader). If that theory holds true, he could hardly have lasted three years.

Why would someone who has effectively been on the run for three years have such people in his life?

Zarqawi was intelligent, and careful enough to avoid death or capture for over three years. The idea that someone intelligent enough to do that is also stupid enough to take the sort of risks you describe is a non-starter.

You may well have people who, while being far away, know a great deal about you, and your habits, but you are not on the run from the US Armed Forces, or the Iraqi security services, or rival terrorist groups.

Make up your mind - Are AQ's operativers are too stupid to drop the dime like you said originally or are they so sharp that they can avoid it?

Make up your mind - Are AQ's operativers are too stupid to drop the dime like you said originally or are they so sharp that they can avoid it?

I'm not the one making theories that positively require al-Qaeda to fail to take elementary precautions, you are. Nor am I making play of a supposed conflict within al-Qaeda.

There is a difference between being smart enough to take elementary precautions, and being omniscient.

Make up your mind - Are AQ's operativers are too stupid to drop the dime like you said originally or are they so sharp that they can avoid it?

The person who gave Zarqawi away was in Jordanian custody at the time, and it has been explicitly stated that he won't be eligible for any of the 25 million dollar reward.

Since he's in a Jordanian prison, I think it's likely that he was tortured, and that he sang like a canary.

It's not a matter of stupid. If someone is electrifying your testicles, and you know where Zarqawi is, and they have enough information to tell if you're lying, you're going to talk.

I'm not the one making theories that positively require al-Qaeda to fail to take elementary precautions, you are. Nor am I making play of a supposed conflict within al-Qaeda.

There is a difference between being smart enough to take elementary precautions, and being omniscient.

No trheory involved here. Just pointing to your self contradictions. Either you're claiming that AQ was too stupid to set this up, a la:

To suggest that such a pack of failures is smart enough to set one of their own up for death is nonsensical.

Or you're claiming that an AQ operative is smart enough to avoid being set up like this, a la:

The idea that someone intelligent enough to do that is also stupid enough to take the sort of risks you describe is a non-starter.

You can't have it both ways.

The person who gave Zarqawi away was in Jordanian custody at the time, and it has been explicitly stated that he won't be eligible for any of the 25 million dollar reward.

Since he's in a Jordanian prison, I think it's likely that he was tortured, and that he sang like a canary.

It's not a matter of stupid. If someone is electrifying your testicles, and you know where Zarqawi is, and they have enough information to tell if you're lying, you're going to talk.

I'm simply not seeing any sources that confirm this version. Care to enlighten us?

No theory involved here. Just pointing to your self contradictions. Either you're claiming that AQ was too stupid to set this up, a la:

Yes theory involved here, namely the theory that al-Qaeda decided to have him bumped off (by using a rather uncertain convoluted method, which is rather an odd thing for a pack of killers).

I'm pointing out the contradictions in that theory, and the ludicrous requirements thereof.

Incidently, there is a big difference in being able to evade capture, and arrange to have someone else take out Zarqawi.

I've never suggested that he, or al-Qaeda are extraordinarily intelligent, merely that Zarqawi is intelligent enough to take simple precautions, the the fact that he had evaded capture, or death for over three years attests to that.

In order to set Zarqawi up for killing, they would have had to get through these precautions, and I don't see them doing that. They've failed at everything but saving their own necks.

You can't have it both ways.

They are not mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive.

You have claimed that AQ is stupid. You have then claimed that AQ operativers are highly intelligent. That is mutually exclusive.

You have claimed that AQ is stupid. You have then claimed that AQ operativers are highly intelligent. That is mutually exclusive.

A failed organisation cannot have a few brilliant people in it?

Bollocks. They are not mutually exclusive.

He was betrayed by Al-Qaeda. At least, it says so on CNN.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy....:rolleyes: (Come on, you knew that was coming.)

I like Ed Gamble's cartoon on the matter....

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/opgamble/archive/060906.shtml


edit: if you have to log into the FTU site, I can email it to you...priceless...

Disraeliland 5, it seems you are in denial. CNN and BBC both report that an insider did Zaqarwi in. In fact these reports indicate that a superior did Zaqarwi in. If Zaqarwi reports to his superiors, then they can easily wipe him out. Besides, personally I beleive that AQ is a puppet of the CIA anyway (In which case, they would have known where he was all along), but thats a whole new kettle of fish...

You're claiming al-Qaeda is a CIA front, and I'm the one in denial?

Fact is that Zarqawi alive was alienating Muslims all over the world. Dead he is much more useful to Bin Laden, Zawahiri and the movement as a whole.

And by the way, I don't think Zarqawi was the religious type. He was a thug who thought in military terms, not religious ones. Perhaps religion was a motivation (I think ethnocentrism or nationalism are just as likely), but it certainly wasn't too important as far as the way he acted was concerned.

To suggest that such a pack of failures is smart enough to set one of their own up for death is nonsensical.
Eh, familiarise yourself with Chechen politics, plzkthx. :rolleyes:

Happens all the time.

Come on, even illiterate street kids in LA manage it every day.

http://home.sc.rr.com/jbernick/72virgins.JPG

And this is all I have to say on the issue.