According to the US ambassador to Iraq anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5144520.stm
Discuss...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5144520.stm
Discuss...
overall yeah, his death's impact is going to be hard to gauge, but he was still a masthead, still raised em some money, and was a focal point for the militants to focus on, he was basically a publicity whore more than anything, and when you pride yourself on killing women and children, there is no such thing as bad publicity
And yet you criticised everyone who said so..........how does that work?kr@cker wrote:
overall yeah
Tautologykr@cker wrote:
and was a focal point for the militants to focus on
Not so. Publicity had to cast him as the all-new-super-duper-uber-ultra-Hitler with Islam sauce. Al Qaeda's trying to goad America into attacking, don't ya know? I wonder how that's going for them....................kr@cker wrote:
when you pride yourself on killing women and children, there is no such thing as bad publicity
What a surprise. Like we libs haven't been saying it since day one....
I wonder what Zarquawi would say ? I know we were pretty happy when Hitler checked out.
Celebrate what you can while you can.
Celebrate what you can while you can.
jesus christ, it's like you think we were saying that the terrorists were going to stop altogether, it did put a dent in their organization, recruitin, finances, yes they may eventually recover, but it will be a while
the exact words I said were "overall yeah, his death's impact is going to be hard to gauge"
the exact words I said were "overall yeah, his death's impact is going to be hard to gauge"
They did simultaneous raid on about two dozen places and busted about 50 top guys.
This hurt them. It hurt them bad.
As long, however, as we are perceived as the invaders, there will always be fighting.
Keep up the great work Kerry/Murtha and Kennedy.
This hurt them. It hurt them bad.
As long, however, as we are perceived as the invaders, there will always be fighting.
Keep up the great work Kerry/Murtha and Kennedy.
Last edited by Alexanderthegrape (2006-07-04 23:22:05)
Ahem
kr@cker wrote:
they are all a bunch of kids fighting over who gets to be smack the hoop with the stick right now, and will probably end up fighting each other
Garbage..Alexanderthegrape wrote:
They did simultaneous raid on about two dozen places and busted about 50 top guys.
This hurt them. It hurt them bad.
As long, however, as we are perceived as the invaders, there will always be fighting.
Keep up the great work Kerry/Murtha and Kennedy.
Remember back in march 2003 a little something called an invasion took place..that might be one reason. I think the word you were looking for since we obviously ARE invaders is occupiers ..which we are as well. The only question would be if it was intended to benefit the populace or not.
Pretty typical right wing rhetoric tho, instead of blaming the powers that initiated the conflict no blame the people that oppose it. You seriously said one of the dumbest things ive ever heard putting the insurgency on dems earns you the retard of the month award.
[img]http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5264/retard7nk.jpg[/img]
You prolly believe when Bush says some stupid shit about the Iraqi soccer team he actually gives a flying shit about them.. llama.
no shit i knew it wouldnt make a lick of diffrence from the get go. the cell's are like a good bunch of squad hopper's in bf2.
I'd say that it is a typical headline based upon a fragment taken out of context. The 'no impact' statement was in relation to the level of violence, but the very first paragraph shows that there has clearly been an impact.
'But he said the killing had encouraged some insurgent groups to join government reconciliation talks.'
Sounds like an impact to me.
No one seriously expected the violence to suddenly cease with Zarqawi's death. What was expected was that it would cause some disarray in the ranks for a time and show that taking a leadership role in the insurgency would not be a cozy position with a lifetime of benefits. As you can see, it has brought some groups to the bargaining table.
'But he said the killing had encouraged some insurgent groups to join government reconciliation talks.'
Sounds like an impact to me.
No one seriously expected the violence to suddenly cease with Zarqawi's death. What was expected was that it would cause some disarray in the ranks for a time and show that taking a leadership role in the insurgency would not be a cozy position with a lifetime of benefits. As you can see, it has brought some groups to the bargaining table.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-07-05 06:06:10)
Except that the groups that are being negotiated with are the internal groups, whereas the US is supposedly fighting Al Qaeda.
Bubbalo, I refuse to believe that you are that simple.
In what way?
Fact: The government is only negotiating with militants of internal origin.
Fact: The US' stated aim in the "War on Terror" is to protect itself from terrorists. This threat comes from terrorists internal to America, and those operating on a global scale.
As such, we can see that these events in now way assist the US in it's stated aim.
Fact: The government is only negotiating with militants of internal origin.
Fact: The US' stated aim in the "War on Terror" is to protect itself from terrorists. This threat comes from terrorists internal to America, and those operating on a global scale.
As such, we can see that these events in now way assist the US in it's stated aim.
Are you serious? Do you fail to see that if the local insugency weakens that works as a blow to the Al-Queda and other non-local terrorist groups? Why on Earth would the government negotiate with non-local insurgents, anyway? Come on Bubbalo, I know you like being contrary for the sake of being contrary, but get real.
how does that effect al-qaeda?
Where did I say they should negotiate with non-local insurgents?
And any deals, will, IMHO, strengthen international groups. Why? The internationaly groups will not lose any of their people, and they'll gain terrorists from the local groups who want to go on fighting. It'll be good for Iraq, but not necessarily for the US.
Feel free to mull anything over and take your time responding, I'm off to bed now...................
And any deals, will, IMHO, strengthen international groups. Why? The internationaly groups will not lose any of their people, and they'll gain terrorists from the local groups who want to go on fighting. It'll be good for Iraq, but not necessarily for the US.
Feel free to mull anything over and take your time responding, I'm off to bed now...................
Darth, he is not going to get it.
The concepti is that by negotiating with the local groups, Al-qaeda looses some of its Iraqi support. Less trouble in Iraq = good for USA, Less support for Al-qaeda = good for USA.
Al-Qaeda will not gain supporters in any way, the locals that are fighting are followers, not independent thinkers. They take their leaders thoughts and make them their own. If the leaders are working out deals then they will eventually fall in line.
The concepti is that by negotiating with the local groups, Al-qaeda looses some of its Iraqi support. Less trouble in Iraq = good for USA, Less support for Al-qaeda = good for USA.
Al-Qaeda will not gain supporters in any way, the locals that are fighting are followers, not independent thinkers. They take their leaders thoughts and make them their own. If the leaders are working out deals then they will eventually fall in line.
How is this a liberal/conservative issue?Spearhead wrote:
What a surprise. Like we libs haven't been saying it since day one....
sooner or later everyone should come to this conclusion.KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
Darth, he is not going to get it.
Hold on one minute - I thought the US government 'does not negotiate with terrorists'.
I thought that was just a movie saying.CameronPoe wrote:
Hold on one minute - I thought the US government 'does not negotiate with terrorists'.
Reality/TV/Movies *blur*Rosse_modest wrote:
I thought that was just a movie saying.CameronPoe wrote:
Hold on one minute - I thought the US government 'does not negotiate with terrorists'.
I was being a tad sarcastic. It would be funny to see one of the neo-cons explicitly state that 'actually we do negotiate with terrorists'.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-05 12:35:42)
The US isn't talking about negotiating with them. Iraq is.
actually we do negotiate with terrorists
You're thinking of the term in relation to hostage taking, if we or any other nation gave them what they wanted everytime they jacked a plane, bus, school or something, they would be jacking shit left and right, but we (and pretty much everyone else) do have a history of negotiating with terrorist organizations that bother to get organized and sit down for some tea and scones, like Yassir Arafat, unfortunately all it does is give the terrorist organizations some quote to take out of context or some other crap to slap up on a propaganda poster.
You're thinking of the term in relation to hostage taking, if we or any other nation gave them what they wanted everytime they jacked a plane, bus, school or something, they would be jacking shit left and right, but we (and pretty much everyone else) do have a history of negotiating with terrorist organizations that bother to get organized and sit down for some tea and scones, like Yassir Arafat, unfortunately all it does is give the terrorist organizations some quote to take out of context or some other crap to slap up on a propaganda poster.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-05 21:56:39)