Video Shows Al-Zarqawi Fumbling With Rifle

[aeon]

The same thing happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan. It’s called a limited war. The easiest way to dominate the region would have been to nuke Iraq and Afghanistan. You need to ask yourself if your theory is correct, and the whole point of US military intervention in the Middle East is domination, why the US did not strategically nuke a few centers in Iraq? Any sign of any resistance in any urban center that center is annihilated. This would have been the most efficient way to secure the oil fields and eliminate the resistance. Why did the US not employ a nuclear strategy?

That would been ten times more retarded to use nuclear weapons, i mean, damn it, what the hell is wrong with you? do you know what was the consequences for years in japan, after the nuclear bomb were dropped? do you know or you just ignore it?

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Video Shows Al-Zarqawi Fumbling With Rifle

al zarc is management not a front liner.
this video is irrelevant

he can probably handle a weapon better than his US counterpart--rumsfeld

the blunder is really on the part of the US military for believing that this video has any relevence

the only person who it would make an impact on is--john boy utah

the proof is in the eating of the pudding

as beaver says -- if he is such a fumbler why cant they catch him-- or stop his attacks--

and by the way where is osama

idiots

Oussama bin laden isnt even mention anymore in any speech or anything, just like we should forget, just like the anthrax when it happened, and then one day, we didnt hear from it anymore, just liike it never existed.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Video Shows Al-Zarqaw

Not to get too far off-topic, but I think the reason no nukes were used is because the US would have had to come clean to the world and the citizens of the US up front and say "we're not liberating anyone, this is purely a land-grab"

This might have played well at home but I can think of a few billion folks in a bunch of countries who probably wouldn't have been as thrilled at the case...

This propaganda angle is just silly- I am in the "Zarquawi likely doesn't even exist" (or at least exists, perhaps, but isn't behind EVERY SINGLE BULLET in Iraq and Afghanistan, not by a long shot) camp, and it is funny to see the mixed messages in this tape- as someone else mentioned here, if they're incompetent, then why are the US forces in Iraq getting their asses handed to them day and night??

I trulycan't tell- is this shows how poorly the concept of propaganda is used... OR it illustrates that propaganda as a weapon is only truly effective when the intended target doesn't think about the message contained at ALL... I suspect the proper response to the piece was intended to be "HAHA what a maroon" but it flies in the face or the actual reality of the current situation... even it it were true, that the resistance is incompetent, the first thing that would almost HAVE to flash through ones head would be "WOW, imagine if they were actually well-trained, cos even these nincompoops have proven to be unstoppable short of actual annihilation-style carpet bombings- a trained group of skilled professionals would be MUCH worse than what we're up against now"


I don't know, I just find it odd to see propaganda back in vogue, and it makes me think that it probably never appeared convincing to anyone with a decent IQ... weird perspective thsi brings to the history of the 20th century, at least

 

[sanch]

That would been ten times more retarded to use nuclear weapons, i mean, damn it, what the hell is wrong with you? do you know what was the consequences for years in japan, after the nuclear bomb were dropped? do you know or you just ignore it?

I know what the consequences are. What I am questioning is whether you understand that there is a huge gap in what you say the US is doing and what is actually going on. Iraq is a limited war run very incompetently and there are special interests involved. But to move from this to the claim of a diabolical regime with no regard for human life and intent on world domination, you need to explain why the US is not going for the whole enchilada and using the nuclear option.

I am asking you why the US has not used the nuclear option? I am not recommending it but asking a question. There is a difference. Do you have an answer? Probably not.

Not to get too far off-topic, but I think the reason no nukes were used is because the US would have had to come clean to the world and the citizens of the US up front and say "we're not liberating anyone, this is purely a land-grab"

This might have played well at home but I can think of a few billion folks in a bunch of countries who probably wouldn't have been as thrilled at the case...

But according to very vocal posters on this board the US had not fooled anyone and most of the world sees it for the aggressive bully that it is. If this is the case why keep up appearances? There is no margin in prolonging the pretense.

The second part of the explanation only works if the US is indeed promoting democracy. If the US is simply intent on installing another dictatorship to support its energy interests why would it care what billions think? It never cared about world opinion with its support of dictatorships in Latin America.

I find it comical that people who promote a form of logic that requires you put your brain in a blender to follow continuously invoke this “off topic” disclaimer.

Let us stay on topic. Al-Zarqawi is actually a CIA agent.

Proof: Where would he have gotten the sneakers? This shows how stupid the US is. Don’t they know there are no Walmarts in the desert to buy sneakers. To cover up this mistake they needed to make a video showing how stupid Al-Zarqawi is. Would anyone think that the CIA would hire a stupid person who could not fire a gun. The people in Iraq would see it as an American gun and this would prove that Al-Zarqawi does not work with the CIA because if he did he would not make the mistakes in the video. Why would the US want Al-Zarqawi on their side? Because there is too much oil in the world. They are finding more every day. This is why the Iraq war was started. So that the real targets like Canada would be distracted. And we could go on and on . . .

 

[mabudon]

RE: Video Shows Al-Zarqaw

Glad I made you laugh, and seriously, I don't think it's too farfetched to think that just MAYBE the dummies in charge figured that using nukes would have been a bit more complicated than the course they ended up taking (and if it HAD gone as it would seem some folks anticipated, maybe it would have been better). I merely invoked the "not to get off topic" so folks could understand that I was addressing a point made in a previous post that was not exactly directly linked to the topic of this thread, and if you had a hard time reading and understanding my post you could have asked for the simple explanation rather than making me the target of one of them coy "what these people do" comments, remember that for next time and we'll get along fine

And I think them tennis shoes are an odd thing- I mean, it's "supposed" to show that he has sold out to the west, yet the claims of his "masterminding" of everything that goes wrong in Iraq kinda muddies the message- people have been told that he's both deadly AND harmless... I wouldn't claim absolutely that the fellow in the video is a full-on CIA agent, but to think that this convenient reel of outtakes surfaced by some serendipitous turn of events is WAY too hard to believe- where's all the tapes of Bin Laden accidentally starting to laugh after quoting the Qu'ran?? (or is THAT next- a secret video of Usama eating hotdogs and drinking Bourbon while watching American Idol- I would actually really enjoy it if the propaganda just kept getting crazier and crazier, for people with brains it would be kinda hilarious, in a really dark way)

So yes, I didn't really even address the "authenticity" of this tape because I am pretty sure that its provenance would be topsecret and embarassing if it were to come out, but it is pretty easy to rule out the official story at least

 

[aeon]

I know what the consequences are. What I am questioning is whether you understand that there is a huge gap in what you say the US is doing and what is actually going on. Iraq is a limited war run very incompetently and there are special interests involved. But to move from this to the claim of a diabolical regime with no regard for human life and intent on world domination, you need to explain why the US is not going for the whole enchilada and using the nuclear option.

I am asking you why the US has not used the nuclear option? I am not recommending it but asking a question. There is a difference. Do you have an answer? Probably not.
. .

Ok i understand. The reason why they didnt use nuclear weapons in the first place is easy, they thought it would be easy to get in iraq and being seen as a liberator, but none of these happen for real, but this is only an opinion.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[aeon]

thankx for the laugh :lol:

 

[sanch]

Ok i understand. The reason why they didnt use nuclear weapons in the first place is easy, they thought it would be easy to get in iraq and being seen as a liberator, but none of these happen for real, but this is only an opinion.

The chain of events would be:
1) liberate Iraqis
2) create a democratic government with accountability and transparency
3) steal Iraqi oil.

The problem is that even the weak Iraqi government is capable of bringing charges against Americans and American companies that appropriate their resources and commit crimes in Iraq. Why would the US create a system that could then be used against them.

It would have been simpler to attack with nuclear weapons and install a dictatorship that was friendly to the US.