PDA

View Full Version : al-Zaraqwi reportedly captured in Iraq



Reds4Life
01-04-2005, 03:05 PM
At this point US officials are denying it, but many wire and news services have picked up the story.


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.

The newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad points out that a report on the seizure of the terrorist, on whom the US put a bounty of US$10 million, was also reported by Iraqi Kurdistan radio, which at one time had been the first to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein.


Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was captured in Iraq, said Tuesday's Al Bayan, a daily newspaper of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).[file]
There have been no official reports about the arrest of the terrorist. Al-Zarqawi, 38, a Jordanian, whose real name is Ahmad al-Khalayleh, aims to turn Iraq into a "new Afghanistan".

According to Arab press data, Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad group has divided Iraq into several emirates. The group's independent subdivisions at a strength of 50 to 500 militants operate in the cities of Al-Falluja, Al-Qaim, Diala, and Samarra.

The personnel of the group is on the whole 1,500-strong and includes Iraqis and citizens of Arab and Islamic countries. There are demolition experts and missilemen among them.

The group has depots of weapons and explosives in various parts of the country. It intends to frustrate the upcoming parliamentary elections that are scheduled for the end of this month. Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad threatens to do away with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and members of the interim government.

Here is the link. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/04/content_405831.htm

Drudge is reporting the same thing, as is several arab newspapers, TV and radio stations. Hopefully it's true.

MWM
01-04-2005, 03:08 PM
If true, this is a great thing.

CbusRed
01-04-2005, 03:13 PM
What a relief this would be.

RedsBaron
01-04-2005, 03:25 PM
I hope it is true. I almost would be in favor of (1) cutting off his head and (2) then giving him a fair trial. ( I said "almost")

Cedric
01-04-2005, 03:26 PM
I would be.

RedFanAlways1966
01-04-2005, 03:27 PM
Cut his darn head off!

No wait, better yet... bury him alive in pig remains.

No, even better... lock him up at Gitmo. For the rest of his life. And let us hear stories from the Red Cross about his inhumane treatment. The more stories from the Red Cross about his inhumane treatment, the better.

I am still not convinced of this story. I hate to be skeptical, but who wouldn't be. I hope it is true. Please be true.

zombie-a-go-go
01-04-2005, 03:32 PM
I hope it is true. Please be true.

Word.

savafan
01-04-2005, 05:00 PM
This would be the third time that this has been reported. I hope this time that it's true!

Redsfaithful
01-04-2005, 07:34 PM
It'll certainly be a good thing when he's brought to justice.

But if anyone thinks this'll change anything in Iraq they're mistaken.

Remember when all the insurgent violence was going to stop after we caught Saddam? That worked out.

CbusRed
01-04-2005, 07:48 PM
:rolleyes: .

RBA
01-04-2005, 09:44 PM
It'll certainly be a good thing when he's brought to justice.

But if anyone thinks this'll change anything in Iraq they're mistaken.

Remember when all the insurgent violence was going to stop after we caught Saddam? That worked out.
That's a very good point, RF. The killings will not stop anytime soon. When one of them gets taken out, there are dozens more to take their place.

Roll your eyes if you want, but that won't stop the insurgents/terrorists (or whatever word their using to describe them).

GAC
01-04-2005, 09:58 PM
I hope it is true. I almost would be in favor of (1) cutting off his head and (2) then giving him a fair trial. ( I said "almost")

You're a lawyer after my own heart! And maybe they should televise it. :thumbup:

GAC
01-04-2005, 10:04 PM
It'll certainly be a good thing when he's brought to justice.

But if anyone thinks this'll change anything in Iraq they're mistaken.

Remember when all the insurgent violence was going to stop after we caught Saddam? That worked out.

And yet some of you tried to make a big thing out of our failure to capture Bin Laden.

I don't think anyone has contended that capturing Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi would end the insurgency. But it sure is a victory, and a step in the right direction, if not a moral victory for our troops. If it true, we'll have to wait and see how it may have any effect on that insurgency. Time will tell.

RBA
01-04-2005, 10:28 PM
It's always good to get scum off the street. Capturing/Killing of Bin Laden would have a far more effect on the morale of the American People, our soldiers, and the rest of the free world.

Redsfaithful
01-04-2005, 11:44 PM
And yet some of you tried to make a big thing out of our failure to capture Bin Laden.

I don't want Osama Bin Laden captured because I think it'll make Iraq a better situation. I want him captured, tried, and executed because he murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

But doing so isn't going to do much when it comes to Iraq, and it probably wouldn't do much with regards to terrorism either. There's always going to be someone else to step into a leadership role.

RedFanAlways1966
01-05-2005, 09:12 AM
Let me ask a military question...

... is it better to defeat an enemy by eliminating them from the bottom to the top -or- from the top to the bottom?

I'll give you the answer... the latter of the two. Have I been to West Point or anything like West Point? No. I have studied war though. I am not surprised that some would see the glass as 1/2 empty if this story were true. That is the political nature of the beast.

Leaders make decisions. Leaders know more about an entire army (theirs and their enemy), organization or felonious killing machine (this is a good description for al qaeda). Leaders provide emotional support. Their presence means a lot to those who fight under them. It is always a greta thing to nab a top-dog. For instance, some may know this story...

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Having lived and studied previously in the United States (Harvard grad), Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy was not eager to enter into war with that county. Ordered into combat by his country, Yamamoto was the most reluctant of warriors who seemed to know that it was his destiny to fight and die for his Emperor in a lost cause.

One of the great advantages that the United States enjoyed in its war with Japan was the cracking of the Japanese code. This gave the U.S. advanced warning of impending Japanese operations. One such operation was a visit by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese base on Bougainvillea. Allied intelligence intercepted and decoded a message describing the visit, and the 13th Air Force decided to welcome him. Even the highest ranking American military commanders felt that to give a direct order to assassinate an enemy commander was above them, and the authorization for the mission eventually came all the way down from the office of the American presidency. On April 18, 1943, one year to the day after the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo, 18 American P-38s from the 13th Air Force launched from Guadalcanal, flew to Bougainvillea, found the Admiral's flight, and shot down his plane killing him.

Admiral Yamamoto’s death was a tragic blow to Japanese morale. Many commanders felt that they had lost Japan’s greatest naval strategist, a realization to which several commanders would never recover from.

GAC
01-05-2005, 09:31 AM
Excellent post '66 :thumbup:


I don't want Osama Bin Laden captured because I think it'll make Iraq a better situation. I want him captured, tried, and executed because he murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

He didn't personally murder them. But the terrorist organization he fronts/heads did.

Isn't that also what Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's network/organization is doing in Iraq? How many thousands of lives (coalition forces and the innocent) has he taken?



But doing so isn't going to do much when it comes to Iraq, and it probably wouldn't do much with regards to terrorism either. There's always going to be someone else to step into a leadership role.

You don't know that it's not gonna be effective in putting a hurt on the insurgency. Any time you can capture/take out a terrorist leader you have to do it. It sure doesn't hurt the situation.

You start wiping out the leadership, and sooner or later the soldiers will get demoralized and scatter.

You are damaging their organizational structure and chain of command. Sure someone else may step in. But are they gonna be as effective, and provide the leadership that is desperately needed? You're forcing "utility" players to now take on the role of leadership.

If we had lost some of our generals during WW2, such as Ike, Patton, Clark, McArthur, do you think it could have set us back and hurt our cause?

Any time you lose an instrumental leader it helps your cause while setting the opposition back.

Redsfaithful
01-05-2005, 09:44 AM
You guys are comparing organized national armies to terrorist organizations. I don't think the comparison holds up.

Terrorist organizations are looser and less centralized. Leadership is less important, and it's also easier for people to become leaders in those kinds of groups.

But we'll see won't we? If he's been captured and in a few months things are worse in Iraq what will you say then?

GAC
01-05-2005, 10:04 AM
Why do I always get the impression after reading your posts on Iraq that you want things to get worse just so you can say you're right? That really seems important to you.

And UI say that because I NEVER see you express anything positive, or express any hope or optimism when something positive does happen over there. You consistently look for the down side.


You guys are comparing organized national armies to terrorist organizations. I don't think the comparison holds up.

Terrorist organizations are looser and less centralized. Leadership is less important, and it's also easier for people to become leaders in those kinds of groups.

How do you know this? al Qaeda sure does seem to have an organizational structure. You have to if you want someone to be prepared to step in in case some of your leaders get taken out.

These terrorists are not as loosely organized as you may think.

Redsfaithful
01-05-2005, 10:23 AM
I just find optimism foolish when it's not backed up with any facts at all. I'm silly that way.


These terrorists are not as loosely organized as you may think.

From what I've read most cells operate autonomously. That's a lot different from a traditional military that operates top-down.

Ryan the Reds Fan
01-05-2005, 04:01 PM
So has anyone seen anything confirmed on this yet? Did we actually get him or is it just another false report?

RedFanAlways1966
01-05-2005, 04:21 PM
Must be false as most of us probably assumed, Ryan. If not, it would have been all over the media by now.

Phoenix
01-05-2005, 10:19 PM
It's not on the news. This is internet-driven rumor.

MWM
01-05-2005, 10:35 PM
The administration is saving it until it closer to the election. :D

Just kidding, lighten up.

Phoenix
01-05-2005, 10:39 PM
I sure wish all those knuckleheads who insisted Osama's capture was coming right before the election were accurate...

Steve4192
01-06-2005, 09:37 AM
I'm still waiting for the draft to be reinstated right after the election. That dire prediction is looking more spurrious by the day.

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 09:53 AM
I'm still waiting for the draft to be reinstated right after the election. That dire prediction is looking more spurrious by the day.

Yeah, because it's been what? Two months?

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's really quite funny that you think the idea's been exposed as wrong because two months have passed.

Gloat about the draft doomsdayers in 2008 if it hasn't happened, k?

RBA
01-06-2005, 10:51 AM
I don't think a draft is going to happen. I think Bush is going to have his "election" Jan 30th and declare democracy has won out in Iraq and than pull the troops. Call it cut and run. The other option, which is pretty successful is to go to poor countries and recruit for the US Military. They are paying foreignors huge bonus (well, huge to them) to join the military. I don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem of miltary age Americans who are hawks for the war in Iraq, but they feel they have better things to do than help fight it.


I'm still waiting for the draft to be reinstated right after the election. That dire prediction is looking more spurrious by the day.


US Army reserves a broken force: top general
January 7, 2005


The US Army Reserve is unable to meet its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan because of "dysfunctional" personnel policies that army and Pentagon officials have refused to change.

The Reserve commander, Lieutenant-General James Helmly, wrote in a memorandum to the army chief-of-staff, General Peter Schoomaker, that the part-time corps is "rapidly degenerating into a broken force".

The memo, dated December 20, and first reported in The Baltimore Sun on Wednesday, is unusually blunt. It says the Reserves are not able to carry out the present mission under current personnel rules.

"The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the Army Reserve's inability .. to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom and to reset and regenerate its forces for follow-on and future missions," it said, referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While that alone "is of great importance", the memo said, the Reserves are "in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements", including those specified in other emergency plans in the US and abroad.

General Helmly's memo comes as further evidence of the strain being felt by large sections of the military - especially the Reserves and National Guard - over the US military commitment in Iraq.

Reservists and National Guard troops make up about 40 per cent of the US force in Iraq, a percentage that will increase when troop rotation over the next months is complete. Both have suffered recruitment shortfalls because of Iraq.
Reserve and Guard troops have sued the Pentagon to avoid deployments and have baulked at orders in expressions of frustration that culminated last month in a verbal confrontation between a National Guard soldier and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in Kuwait over the adequacy of armour protection for troops deploying to Iraq.

But General Helmly's memo represents blistering criticism from a top commander, and the Reserve chief cited a number of Pentagon policies and decisions that have harmed reservist morale and strained family lives.

Besides unpopular last-minute extensions of Iraq deployments, the memo criticised the lack of planning for the Iraqi insurgency, which resulted in 8000 soldiers being remobilised and sent back to Iraq just three months after returning to civilian life.

There are about 52,000 Army Reserve soldiers on active duty, with 17,000 in Iraq and 2000 in Afghanistan.

The general also expressed concern that the Pentagon has made it a common practice to use cash bonuses as incentives for army reservists.

"We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary'," General Helmly wrote. "Use of pay to induce 'volunteerism' will cause the expectation of always receiving such financial incentives in future conflicts."

In response to General Helmly's memo, army officials said they were working to address the concerns he raised, and said some of the problems raised were being corrected.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 11:11 AM
"We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary'," General Helmly wrote. "Use of pay to induce 'volunteerism' will cause the expectation of always receiving such financial incentives in future conflicts."

That's a really interesting point.

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 11:57 AM
Reserve and Guard troops have sued the Pentagon to avoid deployments and have baulked at orders in expressions of frustration that culminated last month in a verbal confrontation between a National Guard soldier and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in Kuwait over the adequacy of armour protection for troops deploying to Iraq.


Military people sue the Pentagon?!?! Excuse me for asking, but... is deployment to "do what you are trained to do" a reason to sue. Who sued? The article doesn't point this out too clearly... almost as if we are to believe that thousands of lawsuits are being filed. So the Nat'l Guard and the Reserves are just for fun and a way to make money (paid by the taxpayers of this country)? Gee, learn something new everyday.

Can I sue my company if they make me do another profit-n-loss statement for perspective business? I guess so. OH WAIT... just noticed the NY Times thing at the bottom of the article. That explains it!

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 12:13 PM
Military people sue the Pentagon?!?! Excuse me for asking, but... is deployment to "do what you are trained to do" a reason to sue. Who sued? The article doesn't point this out too clearly... almost as if we are to believe that thousands of lawsuits are being filed. So the Nat'l Guard and the Reserves are just for fun and a way to make money (paid by the taxpayers of this country)? Gee, learn something new everyday.

Can I sue my company if they make me do another profit-n-loss statement for perspective business? I guess so. OH WAIT... just noticed the NY Times thing at the bottom of the article. That explains it!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=307079


WASHINGTON Dec 6, 2004 — Eight soldiers filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Army's policy requiring them to serve longer than the terms of their enlistment contracts.

The soldiers, believed to be the first active-duty personnel to file such a lawsuit, want a judge to order the Army to immediately release them from service.

They say they weren't informed when they signed up that they could be kept in the service beyond their discharge date. The Army says the policy is needed to ensure there are enough experienced soldiers on the battlefield.

David Qualls, one of the plaintiffs, said he signed up in July 2003 for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard but has been told he will remain on active duty in Iraq until next year.

"What this boils down to in my opinion is a question of fairness," he said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. "I served five months past my one-year obligation and I feel that it's time to let me go back to my wife."

Under the Pentagon's "stop-loss" program, the Army can extend enlistments during war or national emergencies as a way to promote continuity and cohesiveness. The policy, invoked in June, was authorized by an emergency executive order signed by President Bush three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It also was employed during the buildup to the 1991 Gulf War.

The Army has defended the policy, saying the fine print on every military contract mentions the possibility that time of service may change under existing laws and regulations.

"The nation is at war, that's the key to this entire issue," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. "We're just using stop-loss for those troops deployed in the war on terror."

Hilferty said about 7,000 active-duty soldiers have had their contracts extended under the policy, and it could affect up to 40,000 reserve soldiers depending how long the war in Iraq lasts.

The lawsuit says the contracts are misleading because they make no explicit reference to the policy.

Jules Lobel, an attorney for the soldiers, accused the government of using "a classic bait-and-switch operation" to lure recruits.

Other soldiers have filed similar cases over the past year, but this was believed to be the first by active-duty personnel.

Lobel and other attorneys representing the soldiers are affiliated with the liberal advocacy group Center for Constitutional Rights, which has sponsored lawsuits alleging human rights abuses by U.S. forces against prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Qualls, the only plaintiff identified publicly, is home on leave but is scheduled to return to Iraq on Friday unless a judge grants his request for a temporary restraining order.

Qualls, a truck driver in civilian life, said his income has dropped 80 percent since his deployment and his wife and daughter are taking medication to cope with the stress of his absence.

The other seven soldiers involved in the case are listed as John Does to protect their privacy. They are now serving in Iraq or are in Kuwait en route to Iraq, Lobel said.

Qualls and two other plaintiffs enlisted under one-year "Try One" contracts that have expired. Four others are serving under multiyear contracts that have run out. The remaining soldier's contract doesn't expire until spring, but he has been told to expect to serve in Iraq beyond the expiration date.

The lawsuit names Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Army officials as defendants.

In San Diego on Monday, Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes, 23, refused to board his ship Monday as sailors and Marines deployed for the Persian Gulf.

"I don't want to be a part of a ship that's taking 3,000 Marines over there, knowing a hundred or more of them won't come back," he said. "I can't sleep at night knowing that's what I do for a living."

Military officials did not immediately comment on his actions. He could face a court-martial, a dishonorable discharge and possible time in a military jail.

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 01:59 PM
"I don't want to be a part of a ship that's taking 3,000 Marines over there, knowing a hundred or more of them won't come back," he said. "I can't sleep at night knowing that's what I do for a living."

Okay. Did this guy understand that he may have to fight in a war when he VOLUNTARILY signed up for this job that PAYS HIM money? Did he understand that our gov't can change rules based on the needs of the country that they serve?

If not... he should have been more thorough before signing up for this job. It may sound cold, but it is true. You sign up for the military and things can happen/change in a heartbeat. That is part of the job. Fair? You should know this before signing on the dotted line. Reality? Yep.

Johnny Footstool
01-06-2005, 02:09 PM
Reserve and Guard troops have sued the Pentagon to avoid deployments and have baulked at orders in expressions of frustration that culminated last month in a verbal confrontation between a National Guard soldier and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in Kuwait over the adequacy of armour protection for troops deploying to Iraq.

Nice try on the author's part, but the so-called "verbal confrontation" was nothing more than an open Q and A session. The soldiers asked a pointed question and Rumsfeld responded with a lot of hemming and hawing. No "confrontation" took place.


You should know this before signing on the dotted line.

From what I understand, that's the whole point of the lawsuit. The soldiers in question are claiming they weren't informed that the conditions of their enlistment could be changed.

I doubt the "stop-loss" program is common knowledge, and if their recruiter didn't make an effort to point it out to them (which he probably didn't), they could indeed have a case.

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 06:59 PM
Okay. Did this guy understand that he may have to fight in a war when he VOLUNTARILY signed up for this job that PAYS HIM money? Did he understand that our gov't can change rules based on the needs of the country that they serve?

If not... he should have been more thorough before signing up for this job. It may sound cold, but it is true. You sign up for the military and things can happen/change in a heartbeat. That is part of the job. Fair? You should know this before signing on the dotted line. Reality? Yep.

Did you read the entire article or skim it until you found something to be outraged about?

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 07:58 PM
Did you read the entire article or skim it until you found something to be outraged about?

I read the whole article. The comment is a part of the article. The author thought it was important enough to include... so it is fair game. I must admit that there are many parts of the article that are not in agreement with my opinions.