Al-Qaeda controls Iraq revolt, says US

[sabra]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/alqaeda-controls-iraq-revolt-says-us/2005/09/28/1127804549406.html?oneclick=true

Al-Qaeda controls Iraq revolt, says US

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Iraqi and foreign associates have in effect commandeered the insurgency in Iraq, becoming the dominant opposition force and the greatest immediate threat to Washington's ambitions, the most senior US military intelligence officer in Iraq says.

"I think what you really have here is an insurgency that's been hijacked by a terrorist campaign," Major-General Richard Zahner said, adding that Zarqawi had become "the face of this thing" with the "funding, the media" and "other folks to work along in his draught".

...

Even with Zarqawi's growing significance, General Zahner and other officers stressed Iraq's insurgency remained a complex mix of elements. It includes a variety of factions, often with differing political, religious or tribal aims.

"While Zarqawi is the overarching bad guy - the one everyone loves to hate - there are a lot of other bad guys operating as well," said Brigadier-General Karl Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.

[tainowarrior]

1. hahahahahaha...

I knew this shit was coming.

Now the 3-5% foreign insurgents (estimates of the U.S.) rule the insurgency....RIGGHGHTT....

They're getting desperate if they're coming out with Zarqawi boogeymen as the leaders of the insurgency.

[jobycom]

3. The worst part is they probably believe it.

BushCo and the people they choose to plan their military adventures can't understand complexity. They have to boil it all down to one enemy they can fight, so they can believe that defeating that one enemy will win the war for them. That's why they can't win.

[Roland99]

9. Well...3-5% of the GOP rules the terror campaign here in the U.S.

:scared:

[tainowarrior]

18. good point

but it's different when we speak about native Iraqis being led by foreign fundamentalist jihadists, which are antithetical to the secular nationalists that really run this insurgency. In the U.S., the American people are consenting to fellow Americans (however imperially warped) ruling over them.

[jobycom]

2. "Zarqawi had become "the face of this thing""

Interesting. I thought the US was the rallying image for the insurgency.

Overthrowing a harmless nation and giving it to your most deadly enemy? Priceless.

[bowens43]

13. Let's keep in mind that Bush had the opportunity

to take Zarqawi out BEFORE the war started but he REFUSED to do so. He needed Zarqawi to be the evil terrorist who had a training camp in Iraq. If Zarqwawi really is the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, he is there because bush allowed him to be there. To now insist that the insurgency is the creation of Zarqawi is ridiculous.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/terrorism_and_its_control_/2004/05/why_did_bush_spare_zarqawi.php

[jobycom]

16. Hard to say with Bush why he refuses to do any of the things he does.

He's so incompetent I can never tell whether he has some sinister purpose or is just too stupid to do anything.

[enigma000]

4. Good or Bad?

Good: foreign terrorist leader killing Iraqis won't be very popular to much of the population at large. Maybe his head will be sawed off soon.......

Bad: It's now Al-Qaeda VS the USA. There will be overwhelming pressure not to lose this one - that means a long stay.

[sabra]

6. precisely! Both Blair and General Myers made similar statements yesterday

"if we loose, another 9/11 will happen"

[indepat]

5. Absolutely shocking, if true: who would'a thunk it?

[jsamuel]

7. lies, just look at Basra and Brittain... NOT AL-QAEDA

[Eugene]

8. Al Zarqawi is big only because the U.S. plays him up. (alternate link)

Original Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701601.html

Intelligences shows that foreign fighters only make up
a fraction of the "insurgency". Al Zarqawi gets all
the attention as BushCo tries to merge the Iraq invasion
with the "War on Terror".

[yurbud]

15. and Israelis and Saudis say most foreign fighters aren't al Qaeda (LINK)

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

[wtmusic]

10. Nevermind the Sunnis and Shi'ias slaughtering each other

the important thing is "Washington's ambitions".

[Waya]

11. Zarqawi is the posterchild....

....got doubts thos whether he really exists anymore. Yea, I know it sounds stupid....but some sources say he was killed years ago...some say he was wounded so badly in the leg years ago that now he gets around with a pronounced limp...etc etc etc. Whether he exists or not....he seems to be always coming out of hiding when it is most convinient for the Bush Agenda.

[wtmusic]

17. Not stupid at all

see bemildred's post below

[bemildred]

12. Zarqawi is dead:

The Anglo-American goal of "federalism" for Iraq is part of an imperial strategy of provoking divisions in a country where traditionally the communities have overlapped, even inter-married. The Osama-like promotion of al-Zarqawi is integral to this. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, he is everywhere but nowhere. When the Americans crushed the city of Fallujah last year, the justification for their atrocious behaviour was "getting those guys loyal to al-Zarqawi". But the city's civil and religious authorities denied he was ever there or had anything to do with the resistance.

"He is simply an invention." said the Imam of Baghdad's al-Kazimeya mosque. "Al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north. His family even held a ceremony after his death." Whether or not this is true, al-Zaqawi's "foreign invasion" serves as Bush's and Blair's last veil for their "war on terror" and botched attempt to control the world's second biggest source of oil.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x159962

[leftchick]

14. great post bemildred

that is it in a nutshell! It is too bad this country no longer has investigative reporters and reliable media to refute these bogeyman claims by the administration.

:(

[indepat]

19. If al-Qaeda does, in fact, control the revolt, wonder who is responsible

[tom_paine]

20. Imperial Amerika is untrustworthy and a Totalitarian Nation

(albeit in the early to middle transitional stages from the Free Nation it used to be before 2000, when it was spelled with a 'c' and not a 'k')

I don't believe them, as I wouldn't believe what Soviets or Nazis said.