Captured al-Zarqawi Intel To Facilitate US Iraq Withdrawal By Mid 2008

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by jsobecky
Baloney. How does elimimating a"boogeyman" translate into a "boost"? Keeping him alive would be so much more productive.

Not really. If we recall the patterns of some of the U.S. Government past plans to pose as foreign terrorists, and proven events of colluding with terrorists, we can project some thoughts onto this event. Given the timing, it's not hard to imagine an effort to gain domestic political advantage from this flood of very well timed "good news" and follow-up "treasure trove".

And I see no problem with using good news to gain a political advantage. If they were to squander the opportunity, they would be foolish and a one term admin.

Well... like I've been trying to stress... there is historical proof that the U.S. Government has in the past authored plans to have agents masquerade as terrorists (and/or employ actual terrorists), and collude with active terrorists acting against us. If it happened then, it could certainly happen now..

I don't believe that you are suggesting that the US orchestrated the death of Zarqawi. Are you?

You know, at times I get really mad when somebody is feeding me the "news" or "opinions" that only a moron would recognize as such.

Zarqawi was simply not a huge factor in the complex guerilla war that was, and still is, going in Iraq. There are Sunni and Shia militias and outnumber and outgun Zarqawi by a long shot. They won't be gone anytime soon. There are the Kurds. There are all these complexities of a civil war.

To claim that the arch-angel of evil in Iraq is gone and we should all be all but certain in the end of hostilities being near, is an insult to my intelligence. Whoever is telling us this can go to hell.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't believe that you are suggesting that the US orchestrated the death of Zarqawi. Are you?

Um... that wasn't the focus of the portion of text you quoted.

I was referring to the government's proven history of dark deeds. In one case, Operation Northwoods involved plans to both have agents pose as foreign terrorist and hire foreign terrorists to attack innocents as a pretext for invading a foreign country (Cuba). And in the case of the Iran Contra Affair, Regan's team negotiated with anti-US terrorists to aid a covert war effort. These are but two proven, reasonably high-profile conspiracy/scandals from history that show patterns of strategic thinking that shed a critical eye of skepticism on current events.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Believe it or not, there are many more sophisticated data retrieval progams than that which you have at your fingertips.
I hope your cat is OK.

So true, Jsobecky. Forensic computer analysis is fascinating. It's been a few years since I've read about it, so I imagine new technology keeps analysts constantly updating.

I heard the cat jump on the desk, then I heard her settle in at her spot (that was my mistake of putting it on her spot!) pushing with her hind legs against the wall. I heard the laptop move, and as I raced over there I watched it fall to the floor. She looked up at me like "how could you?!" I thought about repair/data retrieval, but fortunately it was just an old workhorse, containing mostly good memories by then. Miss Kitty went on to live a continued spoiled house cat life, until an unknown congenital problem took her to the vet and a quiet passing. We still have her brother, who isn't into computers and lies elsewhere in the house.

OK, now back on topic.

Originally posted by jrob100

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

Source

Wow.. that paragraph reads like a supreme court justice's ruling and has FLAWLESS structure and grammar. We're supposed to believe a Jordanian street thug pecked this out in arabic on his laptop (which miraculously survived two direct hits from 500lb bombs) and it was hurriedly translated in time for a press release a few days later?

Either the translator took a WHOLE LOT of liberties with this document, or the whole thing is bullpoo. I'm calling bullpoo.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Well - that's OK if you like - I was just putting it up to stoke some interest - Wouldn't dream of telling any one what to make of it - I have my opinion also - Seems to me , as I read the whole text not just that paragraph , that there may be some validity to it - If it was planted to demoralize, I'm OK with that also. Don't forget that these guys(Al-Qaeda) aren't unsophisticated to the ways of hype, media manipulation, recruiting like minded jihadists, etc

Originally posted by desert
I heard the cat jump on the desk, then I heard her settle in at her spot (that was my mistake of putting it on her spot!) pushing with her hind legs against the wall. I heard the laptop move, and as I raced over there I watched it fall to the floor. She looked up at me like "how could you?!" I thought about repair/data retrieval, but fortunately it was just an old workhorse, containing mostly good memories by then. Miss Kitty went on to live a continued spoiled house cat life, until an unknown congenital problem took her to the vet and a quiet passing. We still have her brother, who isn't into computers and lies elsewhere in the house.

Cats are incorrigible. I swear, if they could figure out how to use a can opener, they would have no use for us.

Well it seems the Senate has rained on the troop withdrawal parade.

The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops. The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.

news.yahoo.com...

Not a bad move politically. It kind of cuts Democrats off at the knees if they were going to run on a "bring the troops home" platform for the upcoming election. They cant vote to shelf withdrawal plans then claim to want to bring the troops home. Check mate to Bush and his Republicans?

This whole affair, which really does seem staged-managed, forced the Democrats hand to either back troops in Iraq or not. All before the election, nice work.

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Despite SO"s and Subz"s cynicism and apparent distrust of the U.S. Government and partly in response to their outright speculation about the entire thing being an orchestrated plot of the U.S. Government, I think I should point out that either the orchestrator of such an operation was a terrible political tactician (or completely inept), or the find is probably authentic.

If, as implied, the U.S. has plans & desires to invade Iran, then including that bit about Al Qaeda in Iraq wanting to foster a war between the two is totally counter-productive. Such a planned disclosure would make it harder, not easier, to ever get the U.S. Congress to go along with any such plan.

Not really, it was pretty clear that military options to fight Iran were pretty bad. Now that support for a UN resolution against Iran is looky shaky they can simply point to this apparent conspiracy of Al-Qaeda to pit the US against Iran as a reason for backing down (without losing face).

But this begs another question, if al-Qaeda is truly this Islamic bunch of fundies then why are they trying to get the United States to attack a fundamentalist Islamic theoracy? It lends even more credence to al-Qaeda being a complete fabrication of US making.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't believe that you are suggesting that the US orchestrated the death of Zarqawi. Are you?

I was referring to the government's proven history of dark deeds.

jsobecky... I'd be curious as to your response when comparing two related events from the historical record to current events. If our government had plans to pretend to be terrorists, and has in fact collaborated with terrorists in the past.... why would today be any different?

One thing that I keep coming back over and over about the so called Conflict in Iraq and the grounds for the fight on terror is . . . how in the world did US allow Iraq to become exactly the so called battleground for evil vs good fighting.

What in the world was the purpose to get into that country? to have a war ? why Iraq ?

Is all this a well orchestrated conspiracy of this administration or just a side effect of the biggest blunder this administration has done.

The way I see it is just political hypocrisy to use Iraq to justify a war.

Why people has forgotten so easily that Iraq and its insurgency was not the enemy the present administration has made it the enemy.

But why I ask and for what purpose.

Originally posted by marg6043
What in the world was the purpose to get into that country?

To find Saddam's WMD.

Originally posted by marg6043
Is all this a well orchestrated conspiracy of this administration or just a side effect of the biggest blunder this administration has done.

I can't believe in the blunder theory. I don't believe that Pentagon planners 'blunder' into anything. I do believe there is a conspiracy of sorts, but it doesn't neccesarily have to be a malevolent one, per se. Leaders must act in the national interest, so that leads me to conclude that there is a reason for the coalition forces being in Iraq, just not for the reasons stated. What those reasons are remains to be seen.

If this intel they have found is A) real B) up to date. which is a vey big IF then maybe than can break the back of the insurgents and withdraw from iraq by 2008.

As many people have said before me, wouldn't the intel be encrypted and how would it survie the damage that wounded al-zarqawi. If your average high school kid can encrypt their home pc so that their personal stuff is safe and secure ie their dairy etc and there parents cant get into it, wouldnt a world wide terriost organzation be using some top end encrytion or are we let to belive that they arent in the cyber age, when they can use video editing and use the web to post statements and videos of attacks

the intel sounds to good to be true, links to iran, saying that they arent winning and the public are turning against them, lack of spies in the new iraqi army and police force and there isnt a state of civil war. number of recurits falling. sounds like it could be a press release from the DOD or white house.

Me personally i think iraq is going down hill fast and is already in state of civil war, if the iraqi goverment and the US goverment want us to swallow this, then let them go on an unplanned walkabout in a baghad market place (o/s the green Zone) with just a normal secret service detail and see if they manage to stay alive for more than 2 minutes before all hell breaks loose and they have to be pull out in a major firefight

then maybe i will belive that the US and UK will pull out by 2008

Is Iraq a Re-run of Vietnam?

posted by donwhite[/I]

posted by subz
Wouldn’t a complete troop withdrawal by 2008 be dandy timing for the Presidential election?
[Edited by Don W]

History.
Nixon and Kissinger (him under indictment for war crimes - bombing Cambodia) have admitted they had no plan in the 1968 election campaign. They were not sure the GOP would win and they had more urgent matters to attend to. The plan they decided on was popularly known as the Vietnamization of the War. In other words, as the ARVN - Army of the Republic of Vietnam - grew more capable, more and more territory would be relinquished to them to defend.

Nixon explained that for America just to “cut and run” in 1969 or even by 1970, would damage America’s reputation for dependability around the world and increase our burden to carry in the Cold War, still very much on-going then. Ronnie Reagan and Pope John Paul 2 had not yet “whipped” the USSR. But I was skeptical. Why? Well, not just by birth, but I noticed the rate of our first announced withdrawal plan had our men out in August, 1972, just in time for the GOP National Convention. Then, a later slightly modified timetable produced a final withdrawal in early November, 1972, just in time for the presidential election. So you call me cynical?

We actually stayed in Vietnam until 1974. The newsworthiness of our last man out (also our last man to die) was overshadowed by the Watergate Affair and was lost to the public’s notice. In 1975, the ARVN collapsed under ever increasing pressure from the NVA - North Vietnamese Army. The VC - Viet Cong - had been decimated in the 1968 Tet Offensive and following but this was mostly overlooked.

I believe Bush is following the Nixon script. For the sake of our men already dead, and those yet to die, I hope we get a better outcome in Iraq than we got in Vietnam.

This is not to bad-mouth the Vietnamese people. I have only high regard and respect for them. In fact, I was always for Ho Chi Minh. I “knew” he was for the Vietnamese people and America was backing the same lackeys who aided the French exploitation of Vietnam since the 1880s. It was long past time for foreigners to go home. In addition, there were “deals” made with the Vietminh in War 2 should they resist the Japanese occupation, which they did, they would be free of France, for part of (Vichy) France had joined with Germany and Japan. And there were those Roosevelt-Churchill Four Freedoms and the UN Charter which promised “self-determination” of all peoples. “Uncle” Ho was on solid grounds, politically and morally, argument-wise. (I'm not bad mouthing France, either.)

I was very sorry to see our government’s wrong decision cost so many lives of innocent people on both sides. All the more for no good outcome for the US. We then, as we now, have little or no regard for the indigenous personnel we are killing by the uncounted numbers. I am not sure a society is quite “whole” when it shows no regard for what must surely amount to wanton killing of unarmed people. Hmm? Say hello Darfur? Or hello, Rwanda? Hmm? You bad, me good.

In fact, we don’t even have the chutzpah to see our dead Americans coming back home in flag drapped caskets. Isn't that because the 'warmongers-in-charge' know that sight too often repeated will “kill” our national war making spirit? And I'm called cynical!



[edit on 6/16/2006 by donwhite]

REPLACEMENT !!!!

There is already a replacement for him. How did this come about so fast ?

Originally posted by marg6043
I do not believe it, perhaps the new Iraqi government wants the US troops to leave Iraq by 2008 but Mr. Bush made very clear that our troops will be in Iraq for a long time.

So who is in charge in Iraq?

Well, now that Iraw has a PM and a constitution wouldn't Iraq technically be in charge? Though the US is muscling ourselves around to keep power.

What's stopping Iraq, besides from the insurgency, from telling the US to leave their country?

Thre is some good stuff in this thread.

As a practical matter, I do think we're about to see history repeat itself. As we ramp up for a new cold war, we are seeing the major power maneuver to back a long list of client states that could be used to fight proxy wars later in this century.

As much as they fear he body bag, no U.S. President will give up the Iraqi 'prize.' I do think many of you are right when you say that America will have a permanent garrison in that country for the rest of this century.

Originally posted by SFRemmy

What's stopping Iraq, besides from the insurgency, from telling the US to leave their country?

Actually you are right but taking into consideration that since the first elections in Iraq US has claim that Iraq and the Iraqi people is in charge . . . it make you wonder as who pulls the strings.

And as for the insurgency well . . . it was no insurgency before US so I guess that thanks to insurgency US get to stay in Iraq for a long . . . long . . . time.

Now if the only thing that is keeping the Iraqi government alive and from been blown off is US troops then the government in Iraq will keep the troops to keep them alive indefinitely.

What a conspiracy here.

If U.S. forces pulled out in total, the Iraqi regime would fall inside of two years. Nation-building takes decades. Read up on the Marshal Plan that was implemented after WW2 and you'll see what I mean. Even THAT was only a partial success.

Has anyone else noticed how the "facts" behind this story have all but dried up?

Why has this post taken more than a week before being accepted by the PTB of ATS? I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but it was posted over a week ago?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by sosuemetoo]