Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sexual Relations

Who is reporting that at the time of death he was having sex with a goat. That is perposterious no matter how much I want that to be true. 63.76.82.66 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted so never mind :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.82.66 (talk • contribs).

he was actually getting blowed by a jewish spy. the goat story is just an exaggeration.

Hey, theres something about "terrorist scum" in the headline. i dont know how to edit it, so i was just giving you all a head's up. Sorry if ive formatted this wrong or anything

"Islamist Militant"

User:Comandante changed "terrorist" to "Islamist militant" in the first paragraph, User:Jgofborg called that "vandalism" and changed it back. "Islamist militant" is far more precise and less loaded then either of the terms discussed above, "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", so I'm about to revert again to Commandante's edit. It's not like Commandante completely purged the word "terrorist" from the article to make an ideological statement, but I think (s)he's suggested a better word choice for the intro. Please respond here with your reasoning if you object. --Brian Z 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, I can accept that - however, if you check out many of his other contributions which serve to trivialize or even remove the word terrorist from generally-accepted terrorists and incidents, you can see why I missed this as a possibly-valid change. This user's ideology and contributions perhaps made me overly suspicious, I'll admit that, and that this is a good call. JG of Borg 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the intro needs cleanup - some more of which I'll do later... it really jumps around and repeats a lot (words like violence, etc)... JG of Borg 04:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's OK to use some other word than "terrorist", but I would deeply object to using "Islamist militant" instead. It lends the cachet of Islam to this man's activities, and associates Islam with his actions. Shyland 19:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Islamist militant" is far more precise and less loaded then either of the terms discussed above, "terrorist" or "freedom fighter"". This is a completely false statement. It is used by people and media sympathetic to the causes of terrorists. And as far as Islam being associated with the actions of Al Zarqawi, this is correct because Islam promotes violence in order to spread the religion. Read the Koran if you do not believe me.

The whole article needs cleanup. This is the worst page I've ever seen on Wikipedia.--216.110.81.34 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks user who doesnt have an account, I believe this article is actually pretty decent but there could be some clean up. As for Islamic Militant I would argue he is more of a terrorist then many Islamic militants as he has killed Civilians who are muslim by the THOUSANDS. He is a terrorist pure and simple.Jeffrey 04:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...whoever is going to such lengths to create questions about US involvement in Iraq: This is the wrong page for it. Furthermore, the person first states that the knife-wielder in the Nick Berg video is not Zarqawi (based on accent and other things), and then states that US intelligence claiming that Zarqawi recieved a prosthesis in Iraq was faulty intelligence, based on the fact that the man identified as Zarqawi in the Nick Berg video had no prosthesis. Someone is pushing a viewpoint at the expense of facts and quality writing. Jamesg 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some user(s) keep changing militant, paramilitary, guerrilla etc. to terrorist. I don't go through the Contras article and fill that with the word terrorist, despite the fact that the Nicaraguan Contras overwhelmingly targeted civilians.

And no one in the Western media seems to refer to Serb-backed paramilitaries in Bosnia (or the separatist Bosnian Muslim and Croatian security forces for that matter--from the Serb POV at least) as "terrorists"--possibly because they're considered more "army"-like in organisation or there was a "war" going on (isn't there a war in Iraq now?), despite their rampant ethnic cleansing

This is presumably why the Srebenica massacre is not referred to as a terrorist attack, although it seems to qualify by most definitions: it was political violence against civilians by persons who were not official members of the Yugoslav National Army, but instead were Serb-backed insurgents against the Bosnian Muslim government (as recognised by the West).

The unqualified use of the perjorative word "terrorist" isn't good practice in an encyclopedia. The meaning of the word is just too slippery and filled with bias. Kingal86 21:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

suspicious r-drop
why do some american news persons (or others on tv) pronounce it "zuh-KAH-wee"? it's like brooklyn r-drop. that pronunciation is like a character out of a 40's or 50's film or something. There are funny rules for pronouncing the names of prominent militant- or terrorist-types. half the people can't seem to pronounce zawahiri either. it's weird. Ka-zizzlMc 04:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"zuh-WARR-ee". retarded but an h-drop is easier. Ka-zizzlMc 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
well, I guess it's not super important now. some legislator just said "Zuh-KAR-ee". let's start saying mohometan for "muslim". CrackityKzz 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"zar-QAR-wi" - anderson CrackityKzz 03:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC) anderson is crazy cuz he just "adds" a consonant. some people shift the "r". he says the correct r AND the r in the wrong spot. I can't tell if it's cutting edge or retarded. it's original.

congress people are the best cuz they aren't in the pronunciation "bizness" strictly. I think it's like "I don't even care enough about him to get all the syllables in his name right. "za-KARR-y" is the classic for "that guy, what ever. I said the 'z'". CrackityKzz 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

by the way "zuh-WARR-i" is natural for some dialects of brit english. CrackityKzz 03:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the argument on how to pronounce his name would have more strength if he were alive to complain, but come on! when the word "france" and "paris" are pronounced correctly [frahns] and [pahree} then we can really argue about this, too. get over it.

DEAD!

It's being reported on ABC News, through a special report. They say an official announcement is coming and everything has been confirmed. Please leave the date of his death intact. I know it's hard to trust these stories, but they are claiming 100% confirmation. JoeHenzi 06:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the quick edit, this hasnt even popped up on any websites yet... I'm sure more info will come out soon. -sorbix

This banner headline appears MSNBC's website: U.S. officials: Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed. I'm sure more internet sources will follow shortly--RWR8189 07:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This has only yet been reported on MSNBC. Other networks have not yet picked up the story, and MSNBC has not even confirmed it. At this point, it's rumor. Let's not report it just yet. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by at least two news source that he is 100% confirmed dead. The article should be updated to relfect the deceased's status and the details of his death.Jeffrey 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They say military officials reported it. --TJive 07:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ABCNews was first to report to the best of my knowledge, and they claimed it was 100% confirmed by the military. Now MSNBC has also gone with the story, and I'd look for the other cable networks to do similar at the top of the hour.--RWR8189 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm flipping through furiously. I'm surprised no one else has broken this yet. --TJive 07:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NBC anchor said a press conference is going on. --TJive 07:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only found it on NBC. Though they now say it has been confirmed. Probably enough to append to the article, though I still think it's all speculation at this point. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It was live on ABC about a half hour ago. They have since gone back to other programming--RWR8189 07:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reported on CNN International. --TJive 07:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I now see all the networks coming out with it. Good enough for now, though I'd like to see a press conference or something official... AmiDaniel (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it takes more than 30 minutes to organize a press conference at 3:30 AM US Eastern time. — ceejayoz ^talk 07:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just reported on BBC World Service. -Loren 07:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not 3:30 AM in Iraq. It's on FOX now too. They say bombing attack. --TJive 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. Sorry about my revert, I hadn't seen this on the news and nothing on the web when I checked. So I guess I should get my news from Wikipedia now ;) As for Mr. Zarqawi, good riddance.--csloat 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Add me to the list of "sorry for the revert" with the double whammy of also reverting on Deaths in 2006. I love being proven wrong! BryanG^(talk) 07:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we change the article to include this in the "claims of death" section until it is formally confirmed. Harry Hayfield 07:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think pretty soon it should change to "Death".  :) --TJive 07:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem a lot more certain this time, and I'd say keep it up top so the hordes looking for it tomorrow don't go "wtf where's the news?" It's in ITN on the Main Page, after all. — ceejayoz ^talk 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN says a press conference from the Iraqi PM is coming up shortly. Forensic tests still need to be done, but military sources seem very confident this time around. -Loren 07:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Press conference on CNN right now. -Loren 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi PM confirms it. Cheering and clapping in the audience. -Loren 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea I'm suprised that only wikipedia has it. Wikipedia is always to first to get news. Way to go wikipedia! :) Zachorious 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually alt.obituaries almost always beats Wikipedia by hours if not days. Obituary writers etc. read and post there. Williamb 03:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aide to Iraqi PM confirms, according to CNNI. --TJive 07:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

YES!--Mystalic 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance to one evil son of a bitch. Wish I could be at a victory party in Iraq or Jordan tomorrow.

Amen to that! Another ugly, contagious, pus-filled wart rightfully removed from the posterior of society. I'm pretty sure he's gonna have his own special section in hell reserved for him. ;) misternuvistor 10:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

cnn.com: "Two Pentagon officials told CNN that the government is awaiting al-Maliki's announcement in Baghdad before commenting on the report officially." AmiDaniel (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Video on CNNI. --TJive 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From official PC from Iraqi officials: "Today Zarqawi has been killed." AmiDaniel (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gen. Casey says it was an airstrike, 3 km north of Baquba (sic?). More details at 3PM local. -Loren 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WN has some good sources already: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Al-Zarqawi_reported_killed_by_United_States_soldiers AmiDaniel (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we so sure of a *US* report of his death that we're ready to place his date of death in the first sentence of the article? I thought the Pentagon wasn't considered a 100% trustworthy source, because of its ties to arch-conservative George W. Bush. It wouldn't hurt to wait a few days.

I'd prefer see a section on his "reported death" or "the airstrike in X" and when the clamor subsides (and it's not breaking news or in doubt) put in the date of death.

What's the rush? --Uncle Ed 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

it's not a pentagon report... it's a report from the people that are looking at the bodies & the blown up building... it is everyone saying this, not just U.S. sources... - Adolphus79 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he dead meat?

This evil coward got what he deserved. I hope he died a slow and painful death. And BTW, I'm a liberal.--Folksong 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance to the murderous TERRORIST, not militant or any other shabby apologist term.

The article claims the Air Force used two laser-guided bombs in the attack. One was laser-guided, and one was GPS-guided, according to Lt. General Gary North, Air Component commander for the Air Force in Iraq. MSNBC Interview Drogue 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding quickness, simply imagine this had happened at any of the other occasions when the man's death was (erroneously) reported. For me at least, the announcement from his group was the definite confirmation. Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

June 8th?

I think the bombing took place on June 7th -- it just took them a day to report it. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on what? — ceejayoz ^talk 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PC stated he the bombing took place last night, though other sources state overnight. I'm assuming last night refers to the 7th. I may be wrong though. Let me go dig for sources. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN stated it was on Wed which makes it the 7th --Petahhhh 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Early Wed. morning according to the NBC news cut-in here just now... - Adolphus79 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The head of US-led forces in Iraq, General George Casey, said Zarqawi was killed at 1815 (1415 GMT) on Wednesday, in an air strike against an "isolated safe house... approximately 8km (five miles) north of Baquba". - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5058304.stm - Adolphus79 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

>>Interestingly, his date of death was ANNOUNCED on Muhammed's traditional date of death. At least according to the Wikipedia front page.<<

date fix at the top...

something weird is happening with the code at the very beginning of the article... between the arabic name and the dates... I don't know enough wiki markup yet to figure out how to fix it... - Adolphus79 08:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure it out either--and it's really frustrating to fix since it keeps switching from LtoR to RtoL everytime you try to edit it. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Woo, much better. Props to Adolphus. However, it would be nice if we could get that in parentheses and before the date. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah... dernd backwards writing ppl... I got the parentheses around the arabic, but no idea how to get it before the date... if someone knows how to properly write arabic, feel free to fix it... we would like the arabic name between the english name and the dates... - Adolphus79 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

May be best to put it back the way you had it. Right now it just looks bizarre, and I agree about the backwards writing--drives me absolutely insane. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

silly wiki markup... numbers are universal, so it didn't recognize the switch back to english until after the dates... fixed, but we're gonna need to keep the 'b.' there... - Adolphus79 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

wewt The Anome (talk · contribs)... it does work when you remember to actually add the character... LOL - Adolphus79 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

sprotect?

Someone just put in an sprotect request for this article on WP:AIV. Is there a consensus on this? -Loren 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Only seen one vandal yet. Likely to be more given the breaking news, but I'm working on the article right now and will protect if the vandalism gets out of hand. Anons may have some useful info to contribute. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll remove the request on AIV for now. -Loren 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't be pre-emptive. And btw, AIAV isn't the place for protection requests. The requests for page protection page is. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that posted on AIV... There are a few of us watching the page now, I think it's under control... sorry, was a bit pre-emptive, I realize that now... was just expecting worse... - Adolphus79 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm readding the sprotect. There has been repeated vandalism of this page by unregistered users. Alan 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Senior Aide Captured?

Trying to find a source, just heard a report that Reuters has stated a senior aide has been captured and a computer containing data on multiple members. Probably too speculative for now, but it may be worth mentioning in the article eventually. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PD Image?

Is there a public domain image (perhaps one made by the federal government) of Zarqawi anywhere? I would like to get an image of Zarqawi up on the main page, but we can't use fair use images there. I found a couple on commons, but neither had adequate source info. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

you could probably check the FBI's most wanted website... I'm sure those are PD... - Adolphus79 10:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? It's tagged as missing source info, but I think the source is well-stated: FBI. Do you think it really is PD? (Note that the image is on commons). AmiDaniel (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait! Lookie. Isn't the image used on this article PD? It looks to be FBI. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

that's the same image all right... and I am pretty sure FBI would be PD... they allow people to print out wanted posters freely... - Adolphus79 10:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, should I change the source info? AmiDaniel (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... I'm the noob here... LOL - Adolphus79 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Woops, just changed it and then noticed the AP watermark at the bottom. Reverting... AmiDaniel (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, uploaded Image:Alzarqawi3.jpeg taken from FBI most-wanted page. At first glance, they're identical, but when you look closer, there are quite a few differences--camera angle, lacking watermark, etc. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that. Anyway, there must be some image that's PD--what about the images from his videos? Who owns the copyright to those? AmiDaniel (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody who's likely to file a copyright lawsuit ;) --csloat 11:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ok... looking at the Yahoo photos, they have one from a video of his... if it's a screenshot from a video that he released to the public would that count? I mean, he's dead, is he really going to complain about us using his video footage? I could upload this photo if you want... - Adolphus79 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you could, that would be great. I'm talking to someone else about the video images--he owns the copyright technically, but you know the copyright paranoia on WP--Oh noooeee, he'll rise from the grave and sue us! AmiDaniel (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... Image:Photo608-1.jpg... caption from Yahoo is "An image grab from an undated video released on the website of the US Department of Defence (DOD) May 2006 shows Al-Qaeda's Iraq frontman Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a masked comrade (L) at an undisclosed location in Iraq." ... released on DoD website, should be free right? I'll let you deal with the tags... - Adolphus79 11:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you get me a source URL on it? Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

here is the exact page I pulled it from... - Adolphus79 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Predator UAV

stated on NBC television news, I'm sure I heard it... not sure if it's listed in any of the sources cited... feel free to remove if not cited in one of the resources... - Adolphus79 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I've heard repeated references (on radio news broadcasts this morning) that the aerial attack was made with two 500 pound bombs. At first, I had thought that a Predator UAV couldn't carry 500 pound bombs, but a Wikipedia page indicates otherwise. Anyway, we'll get a citation as the news unfolds.Mlibby 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

that's why I removed the RQ-1 reference from the article text, I heard Predator & Hellfire missles at first, and then just now heard 2 500 pound bombs, myself... still searching for someone to mention {in print} the equipment used... - Adolphus79 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(disregard, wrong Predator). This article states that the strike was conducted with 2 500 pounders off a pair of F-16s. Stratfor article http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=267334 Sorry if this editing sucks, I'm new at this.128.143.218.69 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User Theblacksuperman 06:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) PREDATOR, video of the bombing.

Please return references to predator to the artical.

The footage of the bombing of the safehouse appears to be from a Predator drone flying about 20 miles away from the bombsite, perhaps @ 20,000 feet altitude. Check out the level flying, the slow (70 miles an hour) orbit of the site, and the FLIR video (forward looking infra red) are hallmarks of the wonderful UAV.

the predator, does have the capability of carrying hellfire missiles, but the missile strike does not appear to come from the POV (point of view) of the drone, whose video was shown ------> I'm new at this too, Theblacksuperman 06:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Dutch news media (and probably others, too) said that al-Z's exact age was unknown, and that he was thought to be "in his thirties". So where does the exact date of birth in the article come from? Has it been verified? GdB 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Google[1] suggests that October 1966 is pretty widely accepted, though some people such as the FBI[2] and Interpol[3] go for Oct 30 rather than Oct 20. Weregerbil 12:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

should we change that to (c. October 1966), just for accuracy's sake? - Adolphus79 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be changed, yes. Joey 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloated corpse

Can someone upload the picture of his face? What do people think of posting it? --TJive 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

if you can find one we're allowed to use... LOL - Adolphus79 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would be public domain, but I don't know if people would find it appropriate. The Hussein brothers articles do not have their pictures. --TJive 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Like most sane people, regardless of party affiliation, I'm thrilled that Zarqawi is dead. But I'm not sure if a death-photo of him is appropriate. By that standard every deceased person on wikipedia who has a death-photo should have it put up. I think it would be a bit tacky. Perhaps instead we should have an external link at the bottom of the page to the comparison (between live Zarqawi and dead Zarqawi). --BlueTruth 13:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a picture, but I think this one would belong to CNN. --TJive 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Another link. I think the picture is Reuters's, then. --TJive 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, it's actually a slightly different angle. --TJive 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2006/june/ogrish-dot-com-zarqawidead.jpg --86.4.56.196 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is more significance to having this guy's death pic than the average dead guy. The nature of his death is a part of the story. By the way, he looks pretty good in his death pic for a guy who had a couple of 500 pound bombs dropped on him, wonder what's with that? Jake b 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but notice you didn't see anything below the neck. I'm assuming his body was either horribly mutilated or indeed removed completely. God, I feel sorry for the grunts who had to clean up his face and make it look presentable for photos. --65.96.200.120 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. That's me. Forgot to sign-in. --BlueTruth 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how the Western (or at least Anglo-American) media show Arab corpses (e.g. Zarqawi, Hussein brothers, dead guerrillas, murdered prisoners) and not Western corpses (e.g. dead US soldiers, beheaded civilian hostages). Especially considering US outrage at Al Jazeera showing dead American troops.

This is to provide proof of their (Uday/Qusay/Zarqawi) death

Yes I know this particular Arab, Zarqawi, was a twisted fascist (i.e. anti-Shia) mass-murderer (and Saddam's sons were nasty pieces of work) and showing hostages being decapitated would be horrific and appalling. But I'm sure I remember seing a dead (possibly murdered) Iraqi prisoner wrapped in plastic on the news, and I'm sure his family would find that appalling and horrific.

And a lot of prisoners held by the occupation forces and "Iraqi Interior Minister" (i.e. Shia militias/death squads) are civilians innocent of political violence or common criminal activity--as innocent as Western civilians taken hostage by Zarqawi's thugs. And some of the thosands who are held without charge, trial or POW status have been beaten or tortured to death by their captors (which probably hurts more than being decapitated by Zarqawi's men). Kingal86 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

With Zarqawi killing people more gruesome.

can someone put his new pictures up please

im sure u can find it from department of defence website or other goverment websites. thanks

Pronunciation of al-Zarqawi

Would be a nice addition to an otherwise comprehensive wiki. Anybody?

It's pronounced al-zack-are-wee --86.4.56.196 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The 'r' comes before the 'q'. --Smack (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard it pronounced "al-zar-car-wee" on the news, but reporters' pronunciation of foreign names is often poor at best. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically because of assimilation the "L" isn't pronounced: "Az-zark'woo-iie". -Fsotrain09 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

hi pronunciation watchers. see Talk:Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#"Islamist_Militant". scroll down a little to "suspicious r-drop". holler. CrackityKzz 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Response from Muslim world

Thank Allah for this good news, this distorter of Islam is now dead, thank the United States, inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un!! George Bush is good man, sall-Allahu aleyhi wa sallam. Maybe there now peace, Insh'Allah. There is evil man that want this edit out, you are liar and demon!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.137.238 (talk • contribs).

Perhaps you would like to contribute a section to the article, on the attitudes of Muslims toward Zarqawi. Is he beloved, hated? Considered mainstream Muslim or a "distorter"?

Please provide sources. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can tell this, my people say "USA, USA!", most very happy. But afraid also. There is so many death here every day. There is much hope!!!

hehe... a quote on TV just now "hell has a special place reserved for Zarqawi." (Sen. Joe Biden)... couldn't'a said it better myself... and I agree with Ed, we'd love a 'local's' opinion and input... just make sure to keep it WP:NPOV... - Adolphus79 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good start. --TJive 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually printed out the picture of his corpse and then used it as toilet paper. No joke...that's how much I hate this evil, evil man. I'm so glad that he's dead and gone forever.

• What did he ever do to you, I'm a pussy? 63.23.127.180 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you let the ink dry first. --TJive 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

About time!BTW 63.23.127.180 you're an idiot -(Iamhungey)

video of bombing

javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2006/06/08/vo.zarqawi.bomb.dod','2006/06/15');

That is a link to a video on http://cnn.com of the bombing of the place where al-Zarqawi was. Can someone please find a better link to it so we may put it in the external links section? dposse 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• That sure looked more powerful than a 500 lb bomb. 63.23.127.180 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Than educate us, how does an explosion of a 500 lb bomb look like? And why would the US Army lie/misinform uson that topic? Mieciu K 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget about the bomb. Please just find a better link to the video. thanks. dposse 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

nevermind. i got it. dposse 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he a terrorist or a millitant?

I'm confused. 129.10.245.1 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He's a terrorist. But in might be good to explore the difference here in the talk section... Jake b 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he adequately fits the description of both Antimatter 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact a section "Terrorist or Militant" would greatly improve this article. Mieciu K 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that to fit the Liberal bent of Wikipedia, the artical has been more or less scrubbed of any suggestion that al-Zarqawi was a terrorist. Sad, really. I guess virtually every other news source in the world is wrong... Jake b 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, you are effectively claiming that NPOV is liberal. Remember the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? To me and you it's a fact that Zarqawi is a terrorist. But others reject that entirely. Therefore terrorist is not a neutral description, so you should not be asking for it. Militant is a good word to use. Tale 08:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Militant is not a neutral term. Besides, there's no way Zarqawi could be identified as a "freedom fighter" given the ideology behind his actions.

66.194.72.10 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Just a guess, and I'm no expert, but I'd say it was a 30 meter airburst from a Guided Mobile Missile Launch System. an airburst would pick up alot more dust over a wide area, hence the huge dust plumes. This would also account for alot of the trees still standing afterwards and a smaller crater -----> Supermanagain. This would also account for the condition of the corpse. If a gps and a laster guided bomb both hit the house, there wouldn't be a corpse left, but an airburst would topple and crumble almost any structure, leaving a corpse to be found, kinda in the condition it was found in, a recognizable body for identification. but I could be wrong. not trying to be a consiracy theorist.

of course there's no reason why a gps or laser guided bomb couldn't be used as an airburst.

66.194.72.10 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Was it impossible to be captured alive and put to trial?

do we have sources explaining why bombing was considered necessary?

Foolish man, he not needed trial!! He was the child of Shaitan that will rot for ever, boiling water will be in his stomach!!!

I agree. It is against the spirit of democracy that Zarqawi (and the others in the building) should be killed without being tried for the crimes they have been accused of. Besides, a prisoner is less inspiring to terrorists than a martyr.

It is highly unlikely that al-Zarqawi would have been captured alive anyway and it is very likely that bin Laden will meet a similar fate (for reasons aforementioned). --Asulca593 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi had been tried and found guilty by Jordanian courts, receiving 2 death sentences. He just had a stay of execution that's all.

Given his penchant for escapes, I suppose you take what you get. The anon comment above is a good one, too. — ceejayoz ^talk 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the obsession with trials. We are at war with terrorists and when we get the chance to do so we will. Abu Musab got substanitive justice, not the procedural crap that makes narcissists feel better about how "good and democratic" they are.

Its a good thing he didn't live, if he was charged under American courts he would essentially have gotten away. If they did shoot him afterward, I applaud that. Oh and by the way the opportunist father (running for senate) of the brave journalist who was beheaded by Zarqawi is obviously deranged for showing sympathy for Zarqawi.--Exander 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See Michael Berg Raul654 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, he had been captured and released by guards who didn't know who he was. To prevent that situation again, and because al-Zarqawi had an uncanny knack of being able to get away, the choice was made to drop the bombs. --Mechcozmo 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important for everyone to remember that al-Zarqawi did have a trial. He actually had two trials. They were both in Jordan and he was tried in-absentia on both occasions and sentenced to death on both occasions. With that being said, is it really necessary for the U.S. to undergo a lengthy trial when the courts in Jordan already reached a conclusion? Mwentwo1 15:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

According to a newspaper article I read today, He was beaten by USA soldiers until his death. Actually if it is true, first time in my life, I will congratulate the US Army. They started to learn the art of military and in my opinion they are doing well in war for such a new country. With respect, the son of the warrior nomads, Deliogul 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"cops can't be soldiers, and soldiers can't be cops"

danm, I wish I could remember who said that, but the dude was right. DevoutHeretic 08:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally Dead

Mission Accomplished. 69.109.170.225 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... Don't you think he would have been a little more valuable alive for interrogation? Men like him usually talk a mean line but end up squealing like stuck pigs under pressure. Anyway, why are you commenting here? Why not write a letter to your favorite neo-con blog? Jake b 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT Mission Accomplished, although it is a small step in the right direction. The insurgent problem is much bigger than just al-Zarqawi. We have already seen that as several Al-Qaeda No. 2's (funny how there has been about 10 of them) were killed in the past years, someone has always been right behind them to take their place. You can kill their leaders, but it will not diminish their hatred. It is pretty much guaranteed that someone will take his place.--Asulca593 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mission Accomplished? haha. dposse 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All of you need to get off your soap boxes. Pipe down. Haizum 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No reference to child that became victim?!

Regardless of what one thinks of Zarqawi's death, why is NO mention made of the child that died along in the attack. The article should definitely mention that!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html

claims that a woman and child have died as well. How old was he?

This puts a stain on this 'victory', I was happy to hear he himself was no longer a threat, but now I have doubts. One might argue whether one nameless kid wasn't worth saving so many other lifes, but you won't see me cheer anymore at all.

No it does not. An eight year old child would kill your infidel behind just as Zarqawi would. He was allied with this network and is an unfortuate but necessary casualty in the killing of Abu Musab, who has killed hundreds by his own hand, an inspired thousands more. It is a victory and the two other deaths are collateral damage necessary to win a conflict.

One note : aren't there other places on Wikipedia where one can debate the justification of this? All this debate is blocking a serious discussion about factual accuracy??

Evilbu 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Their gender and age isn't important, they were probably Zarqawi's family though. Its too bad, but a very dangerous terrorist was taken out. More people die from the flu every day but they aren't mentioned, rightfully so, you don't say hi to everyone on the street do you? Anyways if it becomes a big issue, it can be included.--Exander 22:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the death of the child (18 months) and woman (16 years) to the bio section because they were his son and second wife[4][5].

Mrdthree 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The questions of whether Zarqawi was or wasn't a bad guy and whether or not the airstrike was justifiable are entirely separate from the question of including the ages of the collatoral damage victims. If you don't understand this, then frankly you don't understand what Wikipedia is trying to be. --Saforrest 03:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Limelight

Dont know if anyone is aware of this yet, bet the Yahoo! news article regarding his death includes a link to our article on the man. TomStar81 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying references

I've added the wikify template to the references section twice, and twice it was removed. There's a reason why I put it there: the section is a complete mess. References should concisely state which source was used and by whom, and when the reference was retrieved by the author rather than just dumping a whole bunch of external links into it. Use Template:Cite web in order to fix it. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct time of death

They claim they dropped 2 bombs, but they also claim he did not die immediately, what happened in between, shall we say the time was 7pm? Photo of the dead body, is this good to include here, healthy or not right, even though he was a murderer?

Agreed, there is an over emphasis on the corpse. Since he is a marty to al-quada, and otherwise a complete asshole, I propose the removal of at least some of the photos relating to his death if not all. Not to mention Dead.jpg is really a poor name and image does not even contain a license. --Cat out 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

For anyone who's interested, articles linked to from the main page, according to received wisdom, should not be protected. Anyone able to unprotect it might therefore wish to consider doing so. Henry^Flower 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

typos in one section towards end

The section 'Alleged treason of Al-Qaeda' or whatever the name is contains numerous spelling errors. Perhaps someone with permission to edit could quickly fix the typos? 71.36.116.229 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You should now be able to edit it yourself if you'd like. It had to be protected earlier due to vandalism and was left protected *way* longer than it should have been. Pages linked from the main page are typically not protected more than a few minutes--this one was protected for hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apperant contradiction

The article has a section on terrorist actions, and yet al-Z was an islamic millitant. Can someone explain this to me?

As a leader of a terrorist cell of a terrorist organisation, It can surely be said that he's taken part and coordinated terrorist actions, therefore the section header (IMO) is comepletely valid. Ood talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is quite clear that he was both. — ceejayoz ^talk 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Psyop leaflet

I added this pic which used to be in the propaganda article. I think it really adds a lot and its public domain because its the work of the U.S. government. It didn't really fit into any section other than the conspiracy-theory-esque "Credibility questions" which discusses the possibility that Zarkawi is a modern day Emmanuel Goldstein. I do not subscribe to this view, and did not mean to add the image in the context of it being evidence of this minority POV, but I do think it is illustrative of the fact that there is a lot of Zarkawi propaganda whether he was real or not. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this is PD? It was uploaded by User:Psywar and the source is Psywar.com. I can't find the image anywhere on the site, but I'm a little doubtful that this actually is government work. It would be nice if someone could find a better source for the image. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I took Psywar at his word. However, I will try to find another source as well. It's certainly clear taht psywar.com doesn't claim to be the author of the image, so it's unlikely they would sue us. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Event

I do not think that a person should be tagged with the {{currentevent}}, because a person can't be an EVENT. I have removed the tag. -Tcwd | Talk 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything can be tagged {{currentevent}} if it mentions a current event. The entire article does not have to be about the event. TheProject 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi is no longer current anyways. 129.10.244.112 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And, btw, the event being documented is his death, not the person (which, as you said, can't be an event). Check the history--you'll see that the article is being updated every second as new information comes in; it really is documenting a current event. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, Zarqawi's death is a current event and thus he is in the news a lot. New revelations about the circumstances of his death, etc. may become available and already available information may come to the fore (not just on Wikipedia). Exactly what the current events tag is intended for. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction concerning Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi

According to the article, Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi was also killed in the attacks, and that his death was verified, however, it then says in the same section: "Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi, the deputy of al-Zarqawi, released a statement to Islamist websites indicating that al-Qaeda in Iraq also confirmed Zarqawi's death: "We herald the martyrdom of our mujahed Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq … and we stress that this is an honor to our nation."[40]" If he is dead then how can he release a statement!!! --Inahet 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this too... what the heck is goin' on? The same guy can't have been killed in the attack *and* confirmed Zarqawi's death!!! Moxfyre 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states both that Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi (identified as "Zarqawi's deputy and spiritual adviser", and transliterated at least three different ways in the article) was killed in the attack, and that he later issued a statement confirming Zarqawi's death. One or other of these statements must surely be wrong. Which is it? -- The Anome 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From the present track record of the US' claims, I'd go with "alive", but this is just opinion. See my above comment on confirmation of death - if the Iraqi were dead, we'd hear about it from his brothers-in-arms soon. Dysmorodrepanis 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And the issue continues to be unresolved. The Zarqawi autopsy reports still claim he's dead, but dead men issue no statements regarding the circumstances of their supposed death. Usually, information from Islamist sources regarding the death of key personnel is more reliable than that issued by Pentagon sources; probably because for the latter, only the death of these individualks has propagandistic value, whereas for the former it can be spun to their satisfaction either way. Dysmorodrepanis 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Exact time, terrorist

It seems he died at 6:30, he was both a terrorist and a militant, the birthday could be wrong, some say it's october 1965. I suggest we put his birthday in question mark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.42 (talk • contribs)

Honestly who cares. The doochebag is dead and the world is better for it. I think that's all we need to really worry about. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but I believe it's "douchebag" (lol) --FairNBalanced 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.81.82 (talk • contribs)

We, the people trying to build up this encyclopedia care. The accuracy of the details and whether they should be included or not are important to this article. -Fsotrain09 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Woman and a child killed

If we recall, when Uday and Qusay were killed, Qusay's grandson Mustapha was killed, allegedly he was shooting at the us forces when he was half dead... crap, non-sense... In this case we should find out who was the child and a woman, and explain in detail... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.42 (talk • contribs)

• It's call "collateral damage." If you want to find out who the women and child were, why don't you too find out all the other women and children killed in all the US raids in Iraq so far? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.81.82 (talk • contribs)

Because people like him/her only care about the deaths of innocents when it can further their own liberal agenda. Despicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.76.227.2 (talk • contribs)

^^^so true. Anyways does collateral damage matter? Is a woman or child more significant than a man? Children obviously aren't, we get rid of them with vacuum cleaners before they are born. Another reason why the fundamentalist islamists hate us. Its funny how liberals will align themselves with foreign forces which are much more conservative than our conservatives just to try to prove something, defame someone, or just complain.--Exander 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredibly jaded reaction. Look, this is a globally significant event in which less than a half-dozen people were killed. It is therefore reasonable, from a stylistic point of view, to include some details about the other people concerned (i.e. ages, connection to Zarqawi). If 200 people were killed, it would be unreasonable to require specific details about them all, because that would be disruptive to the general goal of the article, which is about Zarqawi.

The argument that "if we include these, we have to include all information on all collateral damage" is preposterous. One could make the argument that people should care more about these other events, but the reality is they don't. But the Zarqawi bombing is notable, significant, and well-covered, and it therefore warrants this attention. --Saforrest 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It says disputed in the article but their deaths were confirmed in the press conference with the army guy.--RadioElectric 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope I'm putting this in right. From CNN: "Youth not among dead -- Caldwell said it now appears there was no child among those killed. He cautioned that some facts were still being sorted out but said that three women and three men, including al-Zarqawi, were killed." 165.122.126.103 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)bitweever

If a woman was with a known brutal killer it makes her an accomplist does it not? If I invite or allow bad people into my home knowing they are bad Why would I be considered innocent?

I added the death of the child (18 months) and woman (16 years) to the bio section because they were his son and second wife[6][7].

Mrdthree 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Army Plane Picture

The comment : "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi owned. What now son? Couldn't handle a pair of these 500 lbs. bombs? Peace through strength." under the picture of the plane on the top of the page really doesn't like what one should find in an encyclopedia, it would even look misplaced in a serious newspaper. Do we need to keep that kind of easy and not neutral comments here ? 60.50.155.146 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You just had very good timing when you loaded the page, to this vandalized version. The vandalism was removed 1 minute later (and using my tool too, I might add =D). AmiDaniel (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to worry about, such edits are considered vandalism, and will be reverted by serious editors. --Inahet 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Factually incorrect vandalism too, since the plane does not carry any bombs... Dysmorodrepanis 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have cleaned out the external links section as most of the links are redundant with existing references or are not otherwise linked to the creation of the article. According to Wikipedia:External links we should prefer internal links over external links, and adding links without content is considered spamming. Allowing non-reference links to remain can be considered an open invitation for more spam. If there are any objections, please feel free to discuss. Thanks. -Loren 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed the link to Zarqawi on the Most Wanted List. It think that's a safe bet, unless you wanted to consider his corpse "wanted"- for my dog to piss on. Death to islamist terrorists. Long live USA and IRAQ. --FairNBalanced 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a bit redundant for that now isn't it? Though it could be added as a footnote to a blurb mentioning his most wanted status. -Loren 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The video of the bombing should be in the external links section. It is an extremely educational and informitive video that shows through the cockpit of the helicopter that dropped the bombs as the bombs were being dropped on the head of al-Zarqawi, with a person from the military discussing what is going on. What do you think? dposse 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Place of Death

I think that I found exactly where he died on google earth. 33°48'03.09"N 44°30'48.03"E --Descendall 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a graphic on nyt.com, that is definately the place in which he died. --Descendall 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like you're close but after I typed in the coords it just didnt seem to be the exact spot. Rambone 10:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the same exact house, down to the curves in the road and the palcement of the trees, that the New York Times has published. I'm thinking about putting it in the article. --Descendall 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely the right place. Mr. 24 above was probably thrown off because the gun camera footage we've all seen is looking north-to-south while Google Earth's default view is oriented due north. Go to these coords then spin the picture 180° and you'll recognize it instantly... Actually these coords land you about 15 feet into the house's "frontyard". 33°48'02.86"N 44°30'48.53"E puts you smack on the on the roof. Fly in from about 2 miles away, pretend you weigh 500 lbs. and there you have it. JDG 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, you're right, JDG. I can definitely see it now. I was at the wrong angle. This is absolutely worthy of mention in Zarqawi's article. Rambone 10:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's pretty amazing, I recognize it from the other photos too. Google Earth is so cool! Camp Anaconda is only 11 miles away from where he was hiding. (Sobesurfski 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Tattoo

What kind of Tattoo?

I may be ignorant, but I thought muslims were not supposed to have tattoos? could someone clarify about tattoo taboo? ---> theblacksuperman

Maybe a tattoo hailing back from his gangland days? Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a tattoo of Mohammed? 129.10.246.36 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Followers of islam may not desecrate their body; that stems from the old testament, also a belief held by orthodox jews and christians. Zarqawi was an orthodox muslim, so this is highly odd. 211.30.80.121 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He has not been an orthodox Muslim for all his life, just as GW Bush was not an evangelical Christian for most of his life. Zarqawi seems to have cared little about religion until he did time in the bin in his late teens or so. I guess it is not unusual for a Jordanian gangbanger to sport some tattoo, and removing it would certainly desecrate his body. Besides, some of the more radical Wahhabis claim that living a jihadist's life to the fullest does away with some of the moral tenets. Kinda like a general absolution; cf. some 9-11 hijackers partaking to alcohol and loosely-clad girls. AFAIK, Muhammed Atta held that particular view. Zarqawi, IONO, but at least it is possible; he certainly had the odd discussion with such people back in his Afghanistan days. at any rate, it is not impossible and given the man#s background, it may be quite likely even. Dysmorodrepanis 12:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A thing on CNN said that when he was a young thug in Jordan he got a tattoo and drank alcohol, and only later became ultra-conservative. They interviewed a guy who was in jail with him, and he said that Zarqawi's story was that he woke up hung over one day and decided that he felt so sick because he had strayed from the path of God, and from that day forward became a religious zealot. It sounded kind of apocryphal to me, but it's certainly believable that he was a renegade as a young man. --Descendall 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Americans are lying again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5060468.stm

"Major General William Caldwell said Wednesday night was the first time US forces had "definite unquestionable information" they could strike Zarqawi without causing collateral damage to civilians .... US ground forces identified six persons that had been killed in that strike at that time. The dead included a woman and a child."

You see they contradict one of their words with the other. There was no collateral damage, cause woman and kids are combattants or what? If they really care about civilians, they would send a helicopter green beret commando instead of aerial bombardment, so they could select whom they kill. This kind of behaviour will only earn USA more hatred and resistance, just like napalm did in Vietnam.

Really? Women can’t be terrorist? What about the young boys (10-14) in several Africa conflicts I suppose they didn’t kill anyone with a gun as part of a “military action”. They are after all children and we have no details on age or sex of this child. They could be 16 for all we know, but I suppose you would hate the US anyway. I guess this gives you an excuse to hate anyway.

Hi! This page is for discussing the maintenance of an encyclopedia article. You seem to have mistaken this for a chat forum. It isn't. You could try using a search engine such as google to find web forums where people want to chat with you. Thanks! Weregerbil 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That attitude is unnecessary, especially considering that you're talking to a newbie.--RadioElectric 20:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely a woman was a militant in Zarqawi's Islamist extremist group--not very feminist are they? (Although there have been female Palestinian suicide bombers). Although there are child soldiers, I think there's a difference between blowing up a child who probably isn't a combatant (and who doesn't pose an immediate threat even if he is) as part of a missile assassination, and killing an armed child soldier in self-defence.

If they sent a commando squad in, they could have attempted to capture Zarqawi and his associates, rather than just kill them (although they might have died in a firefight or blown themselves up). It's pretty hard to avoid "collateral damage" when you assassinate your enemies by dropping massive bombs from the air. If the same were done to the White House or 10 Downing St., the innocent families of the warlords Bush and Blair would perish as well. (Along with security forces personnel and ordinary employees).

Given Bush's (and especially Cheney's) enthusiam for torturing prisoners, I'm surprised they didn't try to capture Zarqawi. He's already sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan for bombings of civilians, so they could always have given him to them after they were finished "interrorgating" him. Or handed him to the (Shia-dominated) "Iraqi government" who would probably execute the butcher of Shia civilians and on the spot. Kingal86 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi himself has used female militants in his raids - such as the woman he intended to use to detonate a suicide charge in the Jordanian wedding. Collateral damage can be basically defined as causing unintended civilian damage in a strike. People in a safe house conspiring with Zarqawi do not count as collateral damage. Furthermore, it has been verified that there was no child in the safe house, that was an initial mistake. Ezedriel

This is an encyclopedia. Dick. Ace ofspade 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated people

Greetings to my fellow editors, I've removed the above category and would kindly request that others do not re-add Category:Assassinated people to this article as his death does not fit the definition of the word. From Dictionary.com:

as·sas·si·nate Audio pronunciation of "assassinate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ss-nt) tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates 1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.

.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not murdered but was killed in a legal act of war. Netscott 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Depending on whether you consider the ongoing US involvement in Iraq - heck, the invasion in the first place - as "legal". AFAIK, there has never been a formally declared state of war regarding US activity in Iraq. The US describes the bombing as "targetted killing", which is just another way to say "assassination". Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the U.S. has been 'officially' at war with Iraq since 1991. They never 'un-declared' after the first Gulf War. Hell they bombed them about once a week in all the years in between wars.Easter rising

I actually agree as I'm still wondering where those WMDs are but until an international tribunal is declared to hear a case against the United States, prima facie this was an act of war. Netscott 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, he was not assasinated, as it also was not a surprise attack. It also does not conform to the "civilian" or "normal" thought of an assasination (dagger in the dark, or the like). I'd more have thought about it as "blowing the hell out of his building" but thats just my 2 cents...195.26.43.146 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It decidedly was a surprise attack - I daresay he wasn't expecting it - and I don't think just because this is the middle of a war, the word "assassination" is inappropriate. When the leader of a group is specifically targeted and killed, I'd call that an assassination. Graft 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"When the leader..." - I wonder what exactly is the difference to this case, except if rumours are true, al-Z. was not really the "leader" of anything anymore. Basically it depends on whether one thinks "assassination" is a peacetime concept; it is at any rate obvious that the US tried to get their intel right, that the whole operation was designed to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, and that the target of the whole act was the killing of this one person. "Targetted killing" sounds a bit like newspeak to me; I favor the old-fashioned "assassination". And why not? Guess that apart from the man's family and immediate associates there won't be a sad soul on the planed. Even Mullah Omar's response was rather muted. Thanks every1 BTW for enlightening me on the state of war thing! Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott; Didn't Bush stand on a boat and declared the war over? Or did I just missunderstood the situation? Olof Johansson 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. Graft 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And at any rate he didn't. He only declared the "end of major hostilities". Wrongo, Dubya, but still he did not lean as far out of the window as to topple. Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstood. The mission accomplished referred to Saddam's government being toppled. Last I checked, that happened. GreatGatsby 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I didn't refer to the "Mission Accomplished" banner at all, but to the phraseology "end of major hostilities". In that, he was clearly mistaken, albeit this is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. Analysis of the "post-war" planning (or lack thereof) at that time certainly indicated that major trouble was still going to come, but it might have been averted. That things are down there as they are is basically a consequence of mistakes made during the summer of '03. Dysmorodrepanis 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that, but regardless, 'officially' war was never un-declared. As evidence: the U.S. periodically bombed weapons factories and the like every year from the time the first Gulf war ended untill the second began.Easter rising

It's relevent because if it is not an act of war, than it can be classified as murder, in which case he would be 'assasinated'.Easter rising

By that reasoning, the deaths of Galba and Vitellius do not qualify as assassinations, although anyone would certainly consider them such (they were "taken out" during a state of war by people working for their opponents). Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he was assassinated. He was specifically targeted and killed in a safe-house (where he may or may not have been unarmed), not on a battlefield. Whether it was a legal act of warfare against a combatant or not doesn't change whether it was an assassination.

In a war, an armed general who specifically targeted by an enemy soldier because of who he is personally (not just because he is an armed enemy) is still assassinated, even though killing him was lawful. The BBC routinely refers to similar "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants by the Israeli air force as assassinations. Kingal86 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still more fuzzy than that. When Nelson was killed by a French sniper at Trafalgar, I wouldn't exactly call that an assassination -- even though it was probably quite clear to the sniper that the person he was aiming at was an admiral or at least a high-ranking officer. Epstein's Mother 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Nelson happened to prance through the sniper's sights. The sniper was not specifically assigned to kill Horatio, but the F-16 pilots were specifically assigned to kill Zarqawi (though they almost certainly were not told until long after they dropped the bombs). Another famous historical example: Che Guevara. Straightforward assassination following a military operation specifically designed to kill him. Dysmorodrepanis 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh the Gulf War wasn't a declared war. Why do you continue saying that? The US has fought five declared wars (War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Great War, World War II). GreatGatsby 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was a declared war. The US as well as much of the UN declared war on Iraq in '91, condemning their actions in Kuwait. No declaration was issued in Kosovo or in Afganistan, but in the first Gulf War it was.Easter rising

I stand corrected. Congress authorized the first gulf war, but its was never officially declared. Hmm... interesting.Easter rising

---

From Dictionary.com:

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

.

I believe that assasination is the correct term. 211.30.80.121 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, assassination is accurate. But it's not neutral. Tale 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave the POV of assassinated or murdered out of it, and say he was killed? - Adolphus79 05:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The end of major hostilities *has* ended. Guerilla warfare is not classified as a "major hostility". There have been no battles with an organized military structure since his declaration, thus his claim has been exactly right. Ezedriel

Another thing I would like to point out is that a document titled a "Declaration of War" isn't required to allow the legitimate killing of enemy combatants, yes, even targetted. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not a figurehead of any political factions, he was not a civilian, he was a declared combatant and militant waging a guerilla war against the United States. Insurgents of any type are considered valid military targets. The dropping of bombs on a position that are known to be his with the intent to kill him is a military objective, without that personnel, it is believed that operations of a militant organization will be severely hampered, and thus he was targetted. He was no less legitimate than Osama bin-Laden or al-Zawahiri would be.

Dictionary Attack

It seems that to some of us the dictionary is like the bible! Here we are criticising someone who does "immoral acts" by following what seems to be words of righteousness, and we ourselves try to judge Zarqawi's acts with a dictionary definition? OK, OK , no offense to the dictionary and those who posted the definitions But maybe we should post several definitions from Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Collins dicionaries That way we can get a fair grasp of what is trying to be defined.

What do you guys say, It just like graphing a polynomial I guess. The more points you plot, the more accurately the you can determine the exact local maxima and minima with the sketched curve. Ottokarf 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Real role in Iraq

I think the "terrorist and guerilla attacks" section should be expanded and retitled "Role in Iraq" or somesuch. Now that many claims he was a plant or whatever can be laid to rest, morer reliable information can be added. For example his chastizing by as-Sawahiri in OCT/2005, or his apparent demotion to "soldier of jihad" (which is quite possibly a courteous way to say "we've had enough of you, now go and seek a martyr's death!") early APR/2006. By the way, despite the US claiming there willl be a guy nicknamed "the Egyptian" ("al-Masri") to succeed him, the April rumours quite clearly state that the matter was settled by making one Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi Zarqawi's superior once and for all. The latter is a rather unknown figure (no images apparently exist), but this would not contradict a role as the big man behind the scenes (as was claimed by the US al-Zarqawi alwyas was, but in fact never seems to have been.) Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the current section title does aptly describe the "active" part of his role in Iraq (apart from being an Wahhabi poster boy courtesy of the PSYOP campaign gone bad). But what his real "job", or rank, or influence, or whatever, was in Iraq should be discussed in the article, and it is nowhere to be found presently. For what it's worth, we can still only say that he's dead, that he had 2 real legs when he died, and apart from that it's a lot of "possibly"s or "maybe"s. I think his role in Iraq very well illustrates the basically "opt-in" nature of al-Qaeda - from what is known, Osama really was mighty pissed at this half-wit firebrand upstart caring about tactics not badly, but messing up precious strategy all ways to Ramadan by declaring any and all Shi'a legitimate targets. The best bet for how he came to be what he eventually became is own initiative followed by merely surviving and pulling off some acts of violence, then being blown out of proportion by the US. It does not seem that anybody entitled or tasked him with doing what he did, and it can be considered fairly certain (as certain as these things go) that many Islamist "celebrities" really are quite happy to see him dead, as he was a major nuisance for the vision of Osama et al. Dysmorodrepanis 13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean apart from Osama calling him the "prince" of al-Qaeda in Iraq and telling people to follow him? GreatGatsby 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Before (dates are tentative) 2004, Z. was a small-time do-no-gooder from a refugee slum, with substandard writing skills (his handwriting is known to have been a child-like scrawl). Then came the PSYOP camapign which was rather lucidly admitted to be an utter backfire (how many times have you seen top brass not only talking freely about a PSYOP campaign but also admitting it was an utter failure?) which kicked the man into the limelight. In fact, it seems that the concept of "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was originally invented by the Coalition. So, everyone's talking about that new al-Q. chapter down where things are heating up (2004 was NOT a good year to be a Jarhead), and Osama, quite cut off from exercising what little command authority he'd want to exercise, jumps on the bandwagon and gives Z. the official thumbs-up. Later on, during 2005, Z. becomes more rogue, demanding Shi'a muslims to be eradicated (which Osama would rather postpone until the "crusader" issue is settled) and bombing mosques - too radical even for Osama and his gang. So there comes the "dear son" letter from Zawahiri late in '05. Early in '06, the PSYOP blunder is revealed (not surprising anyone who has checked out the biography of Z. - out of his own capabilities, the man would never have become a leadership figure; he could kill some helpless dudes and scrawl some bad Arabic and beat up people, that's about it). Later on, in April '06, Z. is "officially" disposed (not entirely proven, but makes complete sense) and told to go shut up, take the ole AK and see that he goes down in a blaze of glory. The story here is better than John le Carré stuff and too twisted even for Forsyth to invent. Basically, 2 years ago the PSYOP efforts saved Osama a lot of hassle and work trying to figure out, without any decent on-the-ground information, whom to choose as his local poster boy, but half a year ago, he probably regretted his decision nearly as much as the Coalition's MIBs regretted theirs. Z. was a man who managed to piss off both CENTCOM and al-Qaida proper, as he played by nobody's book except his own, and that book was not well written in style nor in content. It seems that he never controlled more than a few dozen guys from his own group, but he inspired hundreds, even thousands maybe, courtesy of the CENTCOM once again "misunderestimating" the mindset of Sunni Iraqis and the Wahhabi sector of the ummah in general. Dysmorodrepanis 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not an American (or Coalition) invention. Stop spouting this nonsense. By your logic, Hitler, who was a failure for a good much of his life, couldn't have led the Nazis to power and thus was an invented enemy by the Allies. You're nearly as bad as those 9/11 conspiracy folks. GreatGatsby 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refute my timeline with FACTS instead of accusing me of saying things that I never said. That "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not an American (or Coalition) invention" is nothing but YOUR OWN interpretation (quotation marks mark a quotation, that is why I put them there!); I am perfectly aware that it is a genuine organization. However, the name "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" was almost certainly invented by some guys in the Green Zone or Washington DC. The group's original name was Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad which by itself does not contain any overt links to al-Qaeda (save maybe the reference to tawhid, which is a concept most aggressively propagated by the disciples of Qutb - that is to say, the "leadership" of al-Qaeda proper). Only after the PSYOP campaign picked up steam, they themselves used the al-Q. moniker.

Generally, the image of Zarqawi as a "terrorist mastermind" is extremely at odds with the known facts about his social and educational background. The most parsimonious explanation is that the PSYOP campaign designed to heighten the profile of JTJ and Zarqawi to make Iraqi Sunnis be taken aback by their violence - basically, an ad hominem campaign - resulted instead in turning him into an inspirational figure he would otherwise have been hard pressed to become, if such a "celebrity status" would in fact have been possible to achieve for him at all. From his known background, he was nothing more than a particularly unpleasant fanatic of comparatively minor importance and below-average intelligence, and not particularly well-connected outside exile-Jordanian terrorist circles before 2004. As a matter of fact, JTJ and Zarqawi in person are directly responsible for sidelining the secular-nationalist/ex-Ba'athist guerilla groups in al-Fallujah during the summer of 2004 (which was when the group first attracted my attention. I have tried to follow their development since then and believe me, it is extremely unlikely that they would have gained such an appeal from their own power. You seem to think that I claim JTJ to be an American construct. Nothing would be further from the truth. The truth, I do believe, is far less straightforward than you seem to think however. Intelligence operations CAN fail and the Iraq war, notably Zarqawi's numerous "deaths" before his actual demise, prove that they do fail, at least in this particular cultural environment, fairly often. The "al-Qaeda in Iraq" operation can indeed be most precisely described with one of the more famous Bushisms: "misunderestimation" - the Coalition's MIBs misestimated the appeal that their campaign would have on many Iraqis and many more foreign volunteers, and they underestimated the damage caused by this misestimation (the emergence of a solid power base for Wahhabi fundamentalism in Iraq, which is something of an anomaly given the rather semi-secular/mainstream past of Sunni Islam in that country. al-Anbar governorate was a bit more open to these interpretations of the Quran, but still it was a far cry from e.g. Saudi Arabia. Not anymore.) They thought that laying the blame for any particularly shocking incident, as long as there were no better suspects, on JTJ/Zarqawi would create the image of a devilish individual that is a liability to everyone who'd dare to work with him. Instead, they built him into a person with celebrity status whose rather small group of followers (a fact readily available to any Iraqi who'd be interested to know about it) was able to take on the entire Coalition and the Baghdad boys single-handedly. It remains to be seen whether Zarqawi's death will have any lasting benefits for the Coalition, but as of now it seems that JTJ was indeed little but a shining front with a somewhat meager reality underneath. FWIW, I'd rather wager that the Shura Council is the real power in the Sunni militant scene of Iraq.

Additionally, invoking Godwin’s Law at such an early point is not a nice thing to do. Dysmorodrepanis 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi or al-Zarqawi?

Occasionally the article refers to the man as Zarqawi, at other times al-Zarqawi. Is either form more preferable? Is a mix fine or would it be better to stick to one? Our article on Al- is a bit of a stub (wink, wink, nudge, nudge to anyone who knows about it). Weregerbil 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"al-" is simply a pronoun: "the...". It could even be that the form "as-" or "az-" is correct (compare as-Samarrah, ar-Rahmadi, but al-Basrah). But the name is just a nom de guerre; it means "Musab's father, the man from Zarqa" if I'm not mistaken. Why "Musab" IONO. It's a very old Arabic name; perhaps something like an Arabic "John Q. Public". Dysmorodrepanis 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the lengthy discussion of the name of Saddam Hussein indicates that Arabic surnames aren't used alone, shouldn't he be called "Abu Musab"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As explained above, its not strictly a surname, rather a place-of-origin identifier. Some of the Iraqis who were interviewed in the network news pieces did refer to him as "Abu Musab", but the military, the rest of the U.S. govt, the Iraqi officials, and independent security experts all refer to him as "al-Zarqawi". Weregerbil, I'll take a look at the Al- article. -Fsotrain09 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. So therefore, the article should not call him al-Zarqawi or Zarqawi, any more than the Saddam Hussein article calls him Hussein or al-Tikriti. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

how bout we call him Al-SmellyDeadGuyWstershed 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fsotrain09: Thanks for the work on Al-, way cool! Recommended bit of brain food for everyone. Weregerbil 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Weregerbil, I appreciate that, especially since its the first article I've made a major contribution to. Anyway, Dysmorodrepanis is right, the form "az-Zarqawi" is the most accurate transliteration from the Arabic. The linguistic explanation is too technical for this space, but yes, the relevent process affects some sounds, like 's, sh, r, t, and z ' and not others. -Fsotrain09 00:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

picture of corpse

the picture of his corpse should be taken down. it's sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.92.31 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored... - Adolphus79 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But methinks it should be renamed, its current name is "Cnn zarqawi martyr.jpg", which sounds NNPOV. Aragorn2 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about naming conventions for photos, but I don't see any problem with giving the image a nice genaric name... - Adolphus79 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But there are many dead people (though not many corpses are on WP). "Martyr" is not NPOV definitely. Replace with "corpse" and it is. I would, however, put the name in front and the source in back ("Zarqawi corpse CNN.jpg") Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This guy is anything but a marytr if you look at it objectively. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The CNN picture name probably came from an article with martyr in the headline, not as a POV statement. Get over it. Tale 08:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be called Abu Musab al-corpsi -Iamhungey

ha hsaWstershed 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not a shocksite either. I do not see the insight the photo brings. I also do not see this over emphasis on his death. It takes a page and a half... --Cat out 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Water Quality

What exatly has the water quality of al-Zarqawi got to do with Him, the article says Intelligence officials who examined the house might confirm that the water in use at the site would be refused by most barnyard animals. Gas chromatographic analysis of what remains of the house likely will show that no soap or perfume was inside at the time of the bombing. Analysis of Zarqawi's clothes could confirm that he bathed quite infrequently. Ken 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• oh plese he's just some smelly camel jocky don't waste your leftie bleading heart tears on himWstershed 02:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

looks like someone's attempt at humor to me, feel free to remove that line... - Adolphus79 05:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

External links (Redux)

Again, please add content, not bare links. If you feel a site contains information worth including, please add the information to the article in your own words and cite the link as a reference, instead of just tacking on more and more external links, which should be used sparingly, if at all. Wikipedia is NOT a linkfarm! -Loren 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Family of Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly

Ok, so the al-Qaeda snitch has been ID'd as "Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly". I hope Jordanian, US and Iraqi officials have thought ahead to safeguard this guy's family. If we get a news report of reprisal killings including women and children, you heard it in Wikipedia Talk first... It would be just like the Bush administration to fail to even consider this contingency. JDG 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

When you say "It would be just like the Bush administration to fail to even consider this contingency.", don't you really mean the U.S. Military and not the Bush Administration?? It is the U.S. Military who handles day to day security operations in that region with little input from the Bush Administration. Bush is not consulted on the daily activities of the military security operations...that is left up to the Commanders in the field (as it should be). So when you, or anyone else, think it necessary to criticize those types of operational decisions...remember (as I'm sure you're fully aware) that you're criticizing the U.S. military. When someone says, "I'm pissed that Bush hasn't found Osama yet"...what they really mean is "I'm pissed that the U.S. Military hasn't found Osama yet" If you think Bush handles the day to day tactical operations involving the search for Bin Laden...then obviously you know nothing of the Military or the Intelligence Services.

Bush was the one who order the attack on Afgahistan (basically), supposedly because they were harbouring Osama and refused to hand him over. However, Osama has still not been captured. Bush was also the one who ordered the invasion of Iraq (basically). Also, although I'm not an American so I don't follow these matters that carefully, I would assume from what I've seen and heard that Bush has appointed many of those in charge of the miltary and intelligence service. Therefore, the failure of these people to carry out their jobs properly rests partly on Bush. In special case such as this, one would also assume that Bush would be able to give specific instructions to ensure necessary action is taken. Of course, ideally this should not be necessary but as the person ultimately in charge of the miltary and intelligence service (AFAIK), in this special case it would be ideal. NB, none of this is not unique in the world. It is fairly common for leaders to be held accountable for the actions (and failures) of those under them, especially in miltary campaigns. Even more so when these leaders continue defend those under them despite apparent evidence to the contrary. Nil Einne 04:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that daily operations are not micromanaged by Bush himself or even by his top civilian advisors. But in a case like this (the protection of a witness and his family) it falls to the civilian leadership to make good and sure those on the ground take these steps. This is not an emergent battlefield situation, which is the only situation, really, in which the military is the initiator (and even that is only true of operations in support of a general directive such as "take Falluja" coming from Bush). So, I think it's valid to worry that the civilian leadership (which boils down to Bush) may again show its astonishing lack of foresight in reading the implications of its own actions. This has been a pattern from the very beginning, when Bush failed to realize that U.S. forces would become, in effect, a national police force in Iraq facing the kind of underground insurrection that world powers have always found nearly impossible to defeat (unless you go back to Roman times and the willingness to kill and maim on a massive scale even in the leading city of the occupied country). It's tempting to say Bush has forgotten the many lessons from history showing the failure of even major powers as longterm occupiers, but one wonders if Bush even knew these lessons in the first place. I'm no pacifist or kneejerk liberal, and I was in favor of the invasion. But it's very sad we could find no better leader than Bush, an unlearned man with (to be charitable) a moderate intelligence. With all the brilliant, capable people in this country, why is this man the decision-maker? JDG 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Addressing Depiction of the Deceased:

Since there has been two or three entries to the talk page concerning the decision to display Zarqawi's post-mortem face, I just thought that maybe I would offer a suggestion to aid the dilemma.

I myself have come across corpse images on wikipedia before, and once an article did depict a graphic corpse, so much ot that caused me to stay away from the random article option, for fear that an uncensored wikipedia would bring up another visual representation of the deceased being addressed by the article.

However, I did get over that. But that experience was just a mild symptom of necrophobia, I guess most people have experiences with the latter on the internet nowadays. Perhaps when seeking an image of google, one clicks on an image icon that as a thumbnail appears to be a tanned and skinny man taking a nap, but when enlarged, turns out to be a full sized image of a decomposed, mutilated cadaver. (www.rotten.com, etc.)

Google hasn't really addressed that issue, but we could try setting a rule that states that a warning banner has to be placed ...maybe.. what, 1 whole page length prior to an image of a corpse? Or if the article is less than a page long, have a warning banner informing the reader of graphic material, appear in lieu of the page, and the "back" and "proceed to article" icons?

IT could serve a similar purpose as the spoiler warningsfor articles written on movies that narrate climaxes and conflicts that could potentially ruin the experience of someone who hasn't watched the movie yet.

It could also serve as a warning for pornographic material further down the page. More conservative readers would come back to wikipedia after stumbling across articles regarding the human phallus for example, or the human anus.

This is my suggestion. Please, if you have a view on this suggestion, please make yourself heard. --Ottokarf 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional example: in the 2005 Bali bombings the bombers' heads were all cleanly severed at the neck by their backpack bombs. The heads were photographed for public display, to help with identifying the bombers. Those photos were widely shown in the media and form part of the Wikipedia entry for the bombings. [8] Tale 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should start with that article, by placing a warning banner before visual depictions of corpses, especially graphic depictions in the 2005 Bali bombing. -- Ottokarf 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a big deate regarding the abuse images on Abu Grahib torture and abuse. For a long time there was a cesnored and non-censored version. I believe that lead to this debate. It is generally understood that banners are discouraged and have been repeatedly removed from articles after a lot of debate. Articles on varous human anatomy do not include banners. So, while it may be disturbing, it should be left alone. Falphin 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Autopsy

Does anyone know who, if anyone, will be carrying out the autopsy and whether the findings will be release to the public? Nil Einne 04:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The US military. --Descendall 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

references section

57 links is just excesive. It should be refined. --Cat out 14:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to take the axe to some of them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WHO ELSE DIED

Nowhere in the newspapers is reported that his son died, then we need to find out if that is for sure, who were the women and was the 5-7 year old child. We need exact names, not just playing guessing games folks.. SHOW THE LINK WHERE IT SAYS HIS SON WAS KILLED, THE MILITARY REPORTED 3 MEN AND 3 WOMEN. Its amazing, he was living there 2 years or more and nobody knew it, the man was a dumb ass... have a family with him under one roof, knowing very, very well he will be dead by the end of 2006.

Source of main image

Do we have any confirmation that the image at the top of this article is in fact from a Jordanian mugshot? Please put this info on Image:Zarqawi.jpg, as it's important for the fair use rationale.--Pharos 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Betrayal

The information that is building that Zarqawi may have been betrayed by al Qaeda rather than found by US investigations is pretty interesting. (Sobesurfski 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

House under surveillance for six weeks?

From the article: "The safehouse itself was watched for over six weeks before Zarqawi was observed entering the building." Is there a source for that? 203.212.139.40 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Very POV, neutrality tag added

The presence of quotes such as:

"Former CIA official Michael Scheuer told reporters that the Bush Administration "had Mr. Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."

...detracts considerably from the POV-free nature of an encyclopedia. What exactly does the presence of this quote achieve, other than to defame a group of people? Not to mention the many other very POV lines I won't bother to dig up. This article needs a major overhaul. TheKillerAngel 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The quote corroborates the NBC News report. The idea that the president might have deliberately not killed Zarqawi, if true, would be a blockbuster and certainly belongs in the article. Granted it puts the Bush administration in an unfavorable light, but the Wikipedia puts various people and groups in an unfavorable light all the time. The point is whether there is evidence worthy of consideration, if not necessarily belief.

On a related point, I'm not sure the rest of the article deserves tagging, but I'm willing to be persuaded. 71.139.45.244 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Keith

I'm not entirely certain what relevence this has to an article detailing about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This is intended to be about him, not about hypothetical conspiracy theories about the war in Iraq. User:Ezedriel

Relevence? Surely Zarqawi's interaction/relationship with the United States government was a significant aspect of his life. And the idea that the Bush administration secretly abstained from killing Zarqawi for political reasons doesn't require a "hypothetical conspiracy theory." "Conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense doesn't include governments plotting covert action (or inaction). Only the very naive would doubt that this happens all the time. Conspiracy theories unworthy of consideration involve many different organizations — scientists at universities and research facilities around the world and many reputable news organizations, for example — secretly coordinating their actions.Keithq 10:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Keith

The quote itself seems malicious in its inclusion. Its stating that something took place, inaction, without any proof. The article itself also does not state there is any proof other then this persons word. Would everyone accept a quote stating the same thing, without the negative aspect attached about US "wining and dining the French"? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A quote is only a quote. In other words, because it is presented as a quote, we are indicating that it reflects the opinion of the speaker. We don't say whether that person's belief is true or not. The quote is relevant because it is from a knowledgable person regarding the subject of the article. --Lee Hunter 19:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree the quote used was a malicious one, and i changed it to a better quote of his that gets across the same theme in a more neutral manner. Anthonymendoza 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is "would it be included for the purpose of explaining Zarqawi's personality type or would it make sense to be a part of his bio?" The answer is most likely know. It can be put under a special section maybe specifically tagged as "theories about Zarqawi", but it seems only to be put there to support an odd ball conspiracy theory that the Bush Administration somehow neglected killing him. As it stands, I've heard enough theories about us never reaching the moon that a claim like that is absolutely unimportant to an overall bio, and strikes more as a "let's put this in here for an agenda", and agendas should not be the goals of biographies. --User:Ezedriel

The information in question has nothing to do with agendas or "oddball conspiracy theories." I explained why in the paragraph a few replies up that begins with "Relevance?" If there's a fallacy in my argument, please spell it out. Keithq 10:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are claims by some that a man never landed on the moon, I see no need for that to have special mention, do you? --User:Ezedriel

No. That would be an “oddball conspiracy theory,” because it implies a conspiracy of silence among not only government officials who are expected, as part of their jobs, to keep even explosive information from the public, but also among astronauts and a large number of ordinary blue and white collar employees -- folks like my father, who was an aerospace engineer. Even now, thirty-five years later, no reputable news organization has reported that any of the many thousands of people involved in the various moon trips has come forward with a claim that it was fraudulent -- not even a single deathbed confession. Moreover, there’s no believable motive for faking the moon shots. Contrast that with the Zarqawi case. Here, there would be no reason for ordinary civilian employees to know the truth, only a small group of government officials whose stock in trade is clandestine operations. But after only a couple of years, two reputable news organizations reported independently that both current and former government officials have come forward with detailed information about the Administration choosing not to kill Zarqawi, information that includes a rational motive. The two cases are completely different in these critical ways. 12.72.193.232 23:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reward

Keep your eyes open who gets the reward, I have a feeling somebody sang, probably because they were sick of all the killings within their own sects. It's possible one of the arrested insurgents told the 'coalition' he will talk providing he gets paid, so now nobody wants to admit and they will probably give money in secret and relocate the guy to iran or america... But somebody said something, that's for sure. IT'S TIME TO COME CLEAN AND KEEP PROMISES!

I added the Rep Mark Kirk quote about reward payments. (Sobesurfski 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC))