It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Zarqawi Accuses US Forces of Using Poison Gases In Tal Afar

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Am I just not keeping up with the news very well over the past 10 months? I see the name "Zarqawi" and I think to myself "Well there is a name I haven't seen since... well... election time" Is this the infamous boogyman that was in the news last fall just about every day? If I've been living under a rock for the past 10 months I guess perhaps I should go back under my rock for another 10 months.
Anyway I can never remember which person is the Iraq boogyman and which is the 2nd in command to bin Laden.




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
TheShroudOfMemphi-

How about instead of giving me quotes made by anti-American supporters of terror, you give me some proof. Prove to me that Zarqawi died in 2001. I think the burden is on you, as we have someone orchestrating terror attacks on an almost daily basis in Iraq, as well as releasing audio tapes whose authenticity has been confirmed. Just because the Pentagon says something doesn't mean its a lie. Sure they lie sometimes. Propaganda is an important and effective part of war, and always has been. But the fact remains that there is every indication that this man is still alive, and none that he is dead- aside from the OPINIONS of some Islamofascists you rounded up.

I myself also need no lesson on terrorism. I didn't jump on the terrorism bandwagon in 2001, 2000, or even 1998. I've always been interested in the subject and have followed it for years now. I'm not here to match brains with you on the subject of terrorism. We just have differing opinions. You happen to think Zarqawi no longer exists, while I think he does. You can give me quotes from people who assume he is dead, and I can probably give you three quotes for every one of your's from people who say he's alive and well. So I suppose until the man is either captured or his corpse is recovered, we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
NO ONE can confirm Al-Zarqawi's existance since 2001, not the CIA, not the Pentagon, not the Whitehouse. NO ONE.

"No One," eh?
Would this be along the same lines as you trying to prove that crop circles of any type are all man-made?
Things are simply black and white, no grey areas at all, in your world...?
Apparently, Al-Jazerra and other Middle Eastern media sources are not having the same problems in providing for Zarqawi's existence. For that matter, most Western media outlets are not having such problems in providing or proving Zarqawi's existence. Thoughts?

But then again, I'm quite sure that I would have problems confirming the existence of TheShroudOfMemphis. Get the point being made here?

Your issue of existence is ludicrous, about as ludicrous as the claims made by Zarqawi or any of his group that asserts that the US and Iraqi forces in and around Tal Afar are using poison gases. Go figure.




No it's a FACT, just because your to ignorant to do some research into the history of Al-Zarqawi and the propaganda used by the US to justify his ghostly presence is your own short falling.

Deny ignorance, don't embrace it. If you read the link i posted, you might learn something, wouldn't that be a novel concept!

But, yeah, screw that, lets just listen to the Pentagon, i mean besides the fact they can't prove his existance since 2001 means nothing right because we have audio tapes right?? Pity voice analysis has shown that there's atleast 4 different people claiming to be Al-Zarqawi when it's only reported as the same person, but you knew that because you've done the research.



What are you on Seekerof? Your posts are just blatent finger pointing crap that would otherwise result in warnings to non-mod members, pathetic. Read my links and address them and lose the lame ass debate efforts like comparing this to 'crop circles' (which you seem to think i promote as all man made?? WTF??)







[edit on 13-9-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

I think it's safe to consider Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a less than reliable source


My thoughts exactly. How in the world could anyone rely on that nut job for information about anything the United States is doing?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
TheShroudOfMemphi-

How about instead of giving me quotes made by anti-American supporters of terror, you give me some proof. Prove to me that Zarqawi died in 2001.


Why don't you ask that of the Pentagon? Why is it up to me to prove he exists or doesn't exist?

The Pentagon have NOTHING which can prove his existance since 2001, yet they promote him as their catalyst and he pops up when it suits American interests.

If your too biased to listen to other peoples advice, so be it, but if i were you and you REALLY wanted to find some information about Al-Zarqawi then i would stop listening to the Pentagon as the sole source of information.

Again, read the links i provided and then ask some proper questions rather than insinuating that Al-Zarqawi does exist because i didn't provide you with the utmost proof that he doesn't.

Do you own research, i gave you a perfect launch pad to do that. It's upto you. Of course, if you want to believe the Pentagon and ignore other suggestion, i'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I did my part by offering something alternative and well backed up, thats all i want to achieve here.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
........
Plus many more at:
www.frontpagemag.com...


Did you even read that link?.... I think not....

Before you go around claiming people are ignorant, that no proof exists for Zarqawi's existance, or that the US is the "sole" source of information about Zarqawi, perhaps you should read that same link you gave and do some proper research yourself...

In fact let me excerpt some parts which show you obviously did not do proper research.


Over the past few years the Iranian press has blamed America and Israel for most of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, especially the ones that Mr. al-Zarqawi was believed to have masterminded. The same exact newspapers and TV programs have of late changed their story - they now point to Jordan as well.

In a December 26, 2004, Tehran Times article titled, "What Does Jordan Want From Iraq," Hassan Hanizadeh wrote: "After the overthrow of Saddam, officials of ... Jordan sent Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Iraq to carry out destabilization activities ... Jordan is implementing a disinformation campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iraqi Shias ... Jordan intends to reestablish the Ba'ath regime in Iraq and re-marginalize the Shias, in order to resolve the Palestine issue through the resettlement of five million Palestinian exiles in western Iraq."

At the end of May, amid reports that Mr. al-Zarqawi was wounded in battle, rumors circulated throughout the Middle East discussing whether he really did exist - was he alive? On June 1, 2005, Iran's Mehr News Agency, reported, "Al-Zarqawi has received treatment at a hospital in the Jordanian capital Amman amid tight security by Jordanian intelligence forces and under the supervision of the Jordanian King Abdullah II ... There is reliable news in Jordan that al-Zarqawi was transferred to the Al-Hussein clinic in Oman ... The news comes after reports previously claimed that al-Zarqawi was receiving medical treatment in Iran."

Responding to claims that he was in Iran, on May 31, 2005, in an article titled, "Is al-Zarqawi in Tehran?" Mr. Hanizadeh wrote in the Tehran Times that claims of Mr. al-Zarqawi receiving medical treatment in Iran was, "similar to an April's Fools Day joke."

The first week of June 2005 saw reports in Saudi dailies Al-Madinah and Okaz, as well as Western publications such as the Associated Press, which quoted insurgents attesting to Mr. al-Zarqawi's death. Al-Mandinah claimed he was buried in a Falluja cemetery and that he left a will instructing Osama bin Laden to appoint his successor.

As this column has repeatedly discussed over the past year, in the Arab world and Iran conspiracy theories surround almost every major news story. The subject of Mr. al-Zarqawi is just one of the latest.


Excerted from.
www.frontpagemag.com...

Some links corroborating the information above.

www.mehrnews.com...

Here is an excerpt from the above link.


Furthermore, Jordan was allied with Saddam’s regime during the 1980-1988 Iraqi imposed war against Iran as well as during Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. It also directly participated in the massacres of Shias in southern Iraq in 1991.

After the overthrow of Saddam, officials of the small country of Jordan sent Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Iraq to carry out destabilization activities, and this terrorist criminal bombed several places in the Shia-majority Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala. These bombings, besides killing ordinary people, also martyred the eminent Shia cleric Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SCIRI) at the time.


And the other bit of information reported by Front Page Magazine from the Iranian news agency Mehr.


TEHRAN, June 1 (MNA) - Al-Qaeda terrorist leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has received treatment at a hospital in the Jordanian capital Amman amid tight security by Jordanian intelligence forces and under the supervision of the Jordanian King Abdullah II, the U.S.-based daily Arab Times reported on Wednesday.


Excerpted from.
www.mehrnews.ir...

Are you going to claim now that IRAN is in cahuts with the US government heh TheShroudOfMemphis?.....



[edit on 14-9-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
It's all falling into the same tired pattern. Boogeyman boogeyman.

Right after a terrorist event or warning, CNN announces: "sources" tell us that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is behind it. No supporting evidence and usually RIGHT afterwards. Within minutes of the bomb exploding or the attack, and even before any police or intelligence agencies are even there investigating.

"We think he did it, it bears all the hallmarks of his, but we are unable to confirm it at this time"

Blah blah blah same thing every time. Followup? Pfft. There will be another attack tomorrow, nobody will remember this one.

"Sources tell us" these tapes are authentic.

"Sources within the administration tell us" that this is almost certainly a Zarqawi-related attack.


If you tell the same lies over and over and over again, eventually people just acdept them.

When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal hit the airwaves on April 28 2004, what do you think the second lead story was?


KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The State Department says terrorists are planning an attack on U.S. soil. High on their anxiety list, terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

AMB. COFER BLACK, COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM: He is representative of a very real and credible threat. His operatives are planning and attempting now to attack American targets, and we are after them with a vengeance.


Hey guess who killed Nick Berg?

www.foxnews.com...


Al-Zarqawi Murdered Berg, CIA Concludes


Then once people started saying "Hey didn't Zarqawi lose a leg? That guy has both legs, it can't be him."

So does the CIA say, oops, our mistake?


"U.S. intelligence officials, who used to believe that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan, recently revised that assessment, concluding that he still has both legs."
(News and World Report, 24 May 2004).

He is Emmanuel Goldstein.

jako



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Jakomo, what proof do you have they are lies?...

I posted evidence that even Iran claims that Zarqawi exists....

Perhaps you should remember that Iran is not very friendly towards the US.. Even information from Jordan claims that Zarqawi exists.

So, what evidence, not claims, but evidence do you have that corroborates your claims that it is a lie?...

In the following link from a Jordanian online news service you will find links that talk about Zarqawi and some of his latest attacks and videos.

www.einnews.com...

Several news services keep providing evidence that Zarqawi exists, even those countries who are vowed enemies of the US. So, what makes you so sure that Zarqawi does not exist when even our enemies say he does exist?....

Where is your proof Jakomo?



[edit on 14-9-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Muaddib:

Where is your proof Jakomo?


Well, how about Fallujah? The US govt was squawking the WHOLE time that the insurgency there was organized by Zarqawi. Better than saying that it was your average Fallujah resident taking up arms against their aggressors, huh?

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml

So why did they do it?


The Bush administration has seized on Zarqawi as the principal leader of the insurgency, mastermind of the country's worst suicide bombings and the man behind the abduction of foreign hostages. He is held up as the most tangible link to Osama bin Laden and proof of the claim that the former Iraqi regime had links to al-Qa'eda.


Remember how Colin Powell said Zarqawi was running Ansar al Islam in Northern Iraq before they invaded and found nothing there?


No concrete proof of the link between Zarqawi and bin Laden was offered until US officials this year trumpeted the discovery of a computer disk, allegedly intercepted by Kurdish peshmerga guerrillas. Among its files was an apparent draft of a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden.

"We will be your readied soldiers, working under your banner, complying with your orders and indeed swearing fealty to you publicly and in the news media," the letter read.

That seemed proof enough for the US government. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of the connection to al-Qa'eda affiliates and al-Qa'eda," Mr Bush said in June.

But senior diplomats in Baghdad claim that the letter was almost certainly a hoax. They say the two men may have met in Afghanistan but it appeared they never got on and there has been a rift for several years.


I'm one guy, dredging up articles on the net that show my point of view.

YOUR side has all the capabilities of the United States Army, Navy and Intelligence services and they STILL can't even decide if the guy has one leg or two? Or where he is? Or what he's doing? Or any proof at ALL that he is the "ringleader" of the entire Iraqi insurgency?

Where is your government's proof? Their resources are practically BOTTOMLESS, so why not something, ANYTHING substantial as to proof?

jako



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

news.bbc.co.uk...
US used white phosphorus in Iraq

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

....snip..
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

....snip...

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

...snip..

Well, we decide to make Combatants instead of prisoners to get around he law of the land. We use suspect TECHNIQUES to Interrogate prinsers and get around calling it was it really is --- Torture...... We send hostile combatants to 3rd party countries that use torture.... We round up tons of people and interrogate them to find one person..... We abuse prisoners in the prisons.... We dont charge people with offenses and just hold them for as long as we want.... We are now using CHEMICAL BASED weapons that burn the skin right off of people and dont call it a Chemical Weapon.....

Have we become no better than Saddam himself and just using a different name like the examples above?
Does Iraq need to be run like this? The US is obviously having to go to Saddams tricks just to find and contain the ENEMY from within.... hmmmm.... Looks like same techniques with different names producing basically the same results, except we still cannot CONTROL the people and we still have not even got the electricity back on..... Sad times ahead......



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo Chemical Weapons Convention, which states that “each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.”


the US didnt agree to that part of it either....



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Basically, we have shunned anything the UN decides. We have basically and well ummmm... literally told the UN what they can do with democratic voting there.. obviously... We only USE the UN when it benefits us and we dont even pay our UN dues......

I am just worried about the direction of this country. If the US is doing all this, then how could we ever complain if other countries did stuff like this to our soldiers...... hmmm..... What if when soldiers were caught in the next war (there surely willl be one with our direction now) and the country we are fighting decided that THEY would not call it a WAR and decide that our people have no rights under any regulations? What if our people were treated and humiliated like that in prisons in a 3rd world? All the other country would need to do is to point to this war.... ummmm..police action... ummmm.... terror ??whatever......

Basically, right now, the only law and order is the one that the bush administration decides on. I am not bashing bush directly, just pointing out the obvious. Follow the rules when we want and ignore the rest. Force others to BE WITH US or AGAINST US. Reminds me of elementary school.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I was curious why the pentagon was suddenly admitting this revelation. this is probably why.... Evidence is out in the open...... Napalm like weapons also huh? I hope it does not get worse!!!


www.msnbc.msn.com...


...snip...
A RAI documentary showed images of bodies recovered after a November 2004 offensive by U.S. troops on the town of Falluja, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against men, women and children who were burned to the bone.

“I do know that white phosphorus was used,” said Jeff Englehart in the RAI documentary, which identified him as a former soldier in the U.S. 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.

The U.S. military says white phosphorus is a conventional weapon and says it does not use any chemical arms.

“Burned bodies. Burned children and burned women,” said Englehart, who RAI said had taken part in the Falluja offensive. “White phosphorus kills indiscriminately.”

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said he did not recall white phosphorus being used in Falluja. “I do not recall the use of white phosphorus during the offensive operations in Falluja in the fall of 2004,” Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan said.
....snip....
In the documentary called “Falluja: The Hidden Massacre”, RAI also said U.S. forces used the Mark 77 firebomb, a weapon similar to napalm, on military targets in Iraq in 2003.

It cited a letter it said came from British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram, claiming 30 MK 77 weapons were used on military targets in Iraq between March 31 and April 2, 2003.

....snip....



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Am I just not keeping up with the news very well over the past 10 months? I see the name "Zarqawi" and I think to myself "Well there is a name I haven't seen since... well... election time" Is this the infamous boogyman that was in the news last fall just about every day? If I've been living under a rock for the past 10 months I guess perhaps I should go back under my rock for another 10 months.
Anyway I can never remember which person is the Iraq boogyman and which is the 2nd in command to bin Laden.


Ahamn Al-Zawaheri (spelling) is Bin Ladens 2nd in command, and his doctor. Actually, I've seen info that implicates Al-Zawaheri being the one who is actually pulling the strings, doing the planning, and Bin-Ladin is just a figurehead.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I'm one guy, dredging up articles on the net that show my point of view.
YOUR side has all the capabilities of the United States Army, Navy and Intelligence services and they STILL can't even decide if the guy has one leg or two? Or where he is? Or what he's doing? Or any proof at ALL that he is the "ringleader" of the entire Iraqi insurgency?

Because JAko, the USA doesnt consider YOU to be worth answering to or proving their asumptions. The administration gives its proof to congress and thats about how far they go. You want proof contact your congressman and ask him press the administration for proof.
Then you might be able to see all the reams upon reams of PROOF you so clearly seek. Other than that you just like everybody else have to take the word from one amongst our side. Tough isnt it?
About that leg thing, whats wrong with the CIA changing their perspective about a peice of intelligence? As you learn more you change your opinion, would you have it that they remain rigid to their stance like some communist body ?
Another thing I want to say is, the people in the CIA who give the statements are most likely not "in the loop" of the actuall going on's they are more publicists than the real "working" people or just some division head who gets the breifings.









posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
IAF101:

About that leg thing, whats wrong with the CIA changing their perspective about a peice of intelligence? As you learn more you change your opinion, would you have it that they remain rigid to their stance like some communist body ?


No, but why would the CIA first say he had one leg if they weren't sure? Doesn't that seem like a pretty big "intelligence failure"?

"Yeah, we figured the guy got his leg blown off, but then, a few months later, we found out we were wrong after looking at the Nick Berg video and realizing that had to be Zarqawi and he had both legs. Sorry."

What kind of budget does the CIA have to come up with such solid info? How hard is it to performs a basic LIMB COUNT on their "Public Enemy #1"?


Another thing I want to say is, the people in the CIA who give the statements are most likely not "in the loop" of the actuall going on's they are more publicists than the real "working" people or just some division head who gets the breifings


I disagree. If a junior CIA agent says something to the press that is untrue, there is an IMMEDIATE redaction from the CIA. The CIA wouldn't let such important info be put out to the public if it was false.

Hey, I kinda made myself laugh on that last sentence.


jako



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Anyone who would give an ounce of credibility to a statement made by someone whose operations purposely target innocent civilians is out of their mind. This man, and I use that term loosely, sends people (including the mentally retarded) on missions of certain death just to blow up women and children.


I know, some times I wonder how the Bush Administration got voted into power.

Oh wait, we were talking about a different person. My mistake.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
No, but why would the CIA first say he had one leg if they weren't sure? Doesn't that seem like a pretty big "intelligence failure"?

Maybe it is an intelligence failure, we cannot say, maybe they are just toying with the public who knows? But the fact is him having one leg or two isnt as important as if he was alive or not.
We forget that the CIA get swamped with data and sifting through that to accertain credible info is no easy task, even for a mammoth like the CIA.
But as for the importance of him having one leg or two, that is a trivial matter because if he is alive he can still cause trouble. Its not like these terrorist "leaders" actually do the dirty work, they just instigate and plot so his physical condition wont affect his doings.


If a junior CIA agent says something to the press that is untrue, there is an IMMEDIATE redaction from the CIA. The CIA wouldn't let such important info be put out to the public if it was false.

I mean that was the case in previous administrations, but in the present administration that doesnt seem to be the case as except for public warnings their are no revelations by the CIA and even during any press breifings, its always non commital info.
Let us take the DoD for instance, they first denied that they used WP in Fallujah and then they said the opposite. If they really wanted to deny it they could have even with the RAI video and everything. It would RAI's word against the DoD and the DoD have all the cards. The person who denied the report wasnt in the know of such operations even though it was printed in the official US Army magazine.
So I think its the same case with the CIA, the guys giving the breifings has some offical statements that he makes and then the remaining is left to his discretion or his wild guess. The CIA is one huge organization and I doubt that even the Director of the CIA knows all the in's and outs of each dept.
The guys who do the press breifings certainly dont know much.

IAF



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
Is this being made up by the rebels or is it actually true?


Of course it's made up. Ala Bagdad Bob.
He's a liar and a murderer.
BTW - they are terrorists. Not rebels.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

No, but why would the CIA first say he had one leg if they weren't sure? Doesn't that seem like a pretty big "intelligence failure"?



yeah the CIA makes mistakes. but when you have many information that shows Zarqawi's existence like the capturing or killing of his lieutenants. then he is real. it would be saying Osama don't exist either because he is just one man that could not execute all those plans back in the past. remember that Osama inspire his followers to do his bidding. Zarqawi is doing the same as well in Middle East.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join