Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

and this one Rhymeless 05:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Title

Should we keep this as American English "Musab" or international English "Mousab"? Which has more google hits? - 68.23.103.58 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Excised info

Who added the part about "towelhead terrorists and sandniggers." This is highly inappropriate.

I removed the following info since it doesn't seem to relate strongly to Zarqawi. Perhaps it could be incorporated into another article? Quadell (talk) 17:48, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Polls of the US public have shown that up to 80% have stated a belief that Saddam Hussein actually planned or caused the 9/11 attacks. The role of these two individuals thus takes on an almost mythic importance. However, the Bush administration consistently denies that it created this impression in the public:

In an interview in September 2003, Bush said

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th... What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Others counter that bin Laden and Saddam did not get along even against a common prime enemy, as the secular, socialist Arab nationalism of Saddam's Baath Party was largely incompatible with bin Laden's Islamism.[1] One of the audio tapes purported to be of bin Laden called for the overthrow of Saddam and his "secular, socialist, infidel" government, [2] and Britain's defense intelligence staff asserted that any fledgling relationship foundered on ideological differences.[3] The CIA had great difficulty backing up Bush's claims.[4] FBI investigators looking for a link said "we just don't think it's there."[5] Israel denied the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection (while asserting the connection between Iraq and Palestinian terrorism). [6]

Your Zarqawi article contains the following sentence: "But, the established connection between Al Qaida operative, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Iraq has and remains a credible link. "

In its context it suggests that Zarqawi was a good reason for the Iraq invasion in 2003. Yet it provides no evidence to back up the statement.

I've fixed this in the article. By the way the information above about the audio tape is not quite correct; the tape did denounce Saddam as "secular, socialist, infidel" but did not actually call for his overthrow; MSNBC changed their report on that issue (follow your own link). But the point is still clear; there's no way al-Qaeda would have worked with Saddam.--csloat 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Politrix links

There are three new Politrix links in the External links section. I'm not sure they belong here -- especially the "Beheading a Day Keeps the Bad News Away" link. It's an interesting article, but I don't think it gives primary info about Zarqawi. The same for the other links, only less so. Quadell (talk) 18:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm now removing the Politrix links. If you think they belong, tell us why here. Quadell (talk) 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Juan Cole (American Middle East expert and Prof of History) quotes a 2003 CBS report: "We have exclusive new details tonight on talks between the US and Iran, a nation the President said was part of an axis of evil. Iran can help the American fight against terrorism, but apparently they have named a price." NBC (Brown) adds, "These three, among the most wanted members of Al Qaeda. The alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq, [Abu Mussab al Zarqawi]. Bin Laden's third oldest son, [Sa'ad bin Laden], known to be planning new Al Qaeda operations. The Al Qaeda spokesman, [Suleiman abu Gaith], famous for introducing bin Laden in this videotape after 9/11. Many US officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key Al Qaeda operatives over to the US or their home countries -- for a price -- in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or the MEK. The MEK has been attacking Iran's Islamic government from Iraq and is now there under US military control."[7]

Polemic

An anonymous user informed us of the following. (I moved it down here, as it was inserted in the middle of a previous post of mine.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:35, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

PREPARE FOR WHAT YOUR MAKER HAS DECREED TO YOU ALL OF A MUSLIM FAITH AND JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN AS WELL .REMEMBER I GAVE TO YOU 911 FROM YOUR DIGITAL CLOCK YOUVE SEEN IT ENOUGH TO KNOW SOMETHING WAS TO HAPPEN ON THAT DAY , SO NOW ITS 1111 THE BEGINNING AND THE END ALPHAOMEGA 1111 A FOUR SQUARE STAR IS ON ITS WAY TO CLEAN THIS PLANET OF YOUR EXISTANCE NO MORE KILLING WILL EVER BE DONE IN THE NAME MAN HAS GIVIN ME , I AM DISAPOINTED VERY MUCH SO , I CREATED YOU FOR MY COMPANIONSHIP AND ENTERTAINMENT , AT THIS POINT HOW CAN YOUR CREATOR FORGIVE SUCH IGNORANCE ? NO I AM NOT YOUR GOD THERE IS NO MAN ALIVE WHO CAN SAY MY NAME FOR IT IS UNKNOWN ,SINCE THE BEGINING OF TIME BEFORE I EVER THOUGHT OF YOUR EXISTANCE ,,,MAN ,,,THERE WAS MY FAMILY ,HOW CAN ANY OF YOU WHO KILL EACH OTHER COME TO BE WITH ME AND MY FAMILY WHEN YOU ALL KILL EACH OTHER IN A NAME UNKNOWN TO ME ,I DID NOT CREATE YOU TO KILL EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF YOUR DIFFERENT SPIRTITAL BELIEFS AND AT THIS POINT NO MAN CAN COME SIT WITH ME IN MY KINGDOM THAT DOESNT KNOW ME AS A TRUE FRIEND , NONE OF MY FRIENDS KILL EACH OTHER FOR ANY REASONS , I HAVE PROTECTED YOU MY CREATIONS ON EARTH FROM STARS ,,,, LET THIS BE SPOKEN TO ALL MEN MY FRIENDS WILL BE THE ONLY SURVIVORS AS I WILL PROTECT FOR THE REST BID FAREWELL YOUR IGGNORANCE WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED .

---

Death of Zarqawi?

All info relative to his alleged death months ago has been removed. What is up?

First, there were unverified reports from U.S. government sources that Zarqawi had died in 2002, killed by a missile in Afghanistan. (These reports came from Northern Alliance members who wanted to give good news to the U.S., so it may or may not have been true.) Even though the report was unconfirmed, it quickly became common knowledge that Zarqawi was dead.

Then Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati on October 7 (the day before Congress voted to give the Prez permission to go to war against Iraq) that proported to show al-Qaida/Iraq connections. Bush claimed that Zarqawi had not died, but had injured his leg in the attack, and went to Baghdad in 2002 to have his leg amputated. (This was his cheif example of how Saddam supposedly aided al-Qaida.) Powell repeated this claim in his famous speech to the UN, urging a resolution for war. (This information aparently came from Kurdish groups who wanted Saddam overthrown, so it may or may not be true.) It soon became "common knowledge" that Zarqawi had a wooden leg.

But then the Berg beheading was released on the Internet, and one of the killers (though he wore a mask) claimed to be Zarqawi, while reading a prepared statement. I don't know if it really was Zarqawi or not, but he didn't seem to have anything wrong with his leg. The U.S. was happy to believe this was Zarqawi, since that would indicate al-Qaida activity in Iraq, so the identity of the killer has rarely been questioned.

Then in March of 2004, an insurgent group in Iraq issued a statement that said Zarqawi had been killed in 2002 afterall. (Oddly, they said he was unable to escape the missile attack because of his wooden leg -- but I thought he had a wooden leg because of the attack. Weird.) Anyway, they had an obvious motivation to say this, so that the U.S. would stop demanding they hand over Zarqawi.

So I don't know if Zarqawi is alive or dead, whether he's ever had anything to do with Iraq or not, or whether he has one leg or two (or three). And I kind of doubt anyone in the U.S. government knows either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

One very interesting thing you forgot to mention though is that Zarqawi was allegedly captured by the Iranians, who held him at least for some time. They were going to hand him over to the US, together with several other highflying al-Qaeda types, in exchange for Washington stopping to support the MEK, an anti-Iranian terrorist/guerrilla group. The neo-cons were opposed to this deal, they want to see regime in Iran as well (since it was so successful in Iraq I guess...) and they plan to use the MEK for that. They managed to prevent the deal, by having this meeting in Paris with Larry Franklin and other Iranian anti-government groups, which was then somehow reported in the press, with the result that the Iranians weren't happy collaborating anymore on al-Qaeda. So basically, there is good reason to believe that al-Zarqawi is still held by the Iranian governments. Juan Cole suggests that one reason why Washington is talking up al-Zarqawi's alleged terrorist group in Iraq, is that the implication would be that Iran realeased him, just to create more problems for the US occupation. I haven't followed this very closely, but I think it's based on relatively sound evidence. Juan Cole seems to be very knowledgeable, well-informed and critical without being a conspiracy nut. - pir 21:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that twist. You're right, of course. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:08, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Have I misread the current version of this article? None of this is discussed in the article!

I put some of it in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Something=Fishey

5 months ago this article was full of talk on Zarqawi's alleged death.

Yeago, I did a little digging, and I think you may be confused. The version from 5 months ago doesn't mention his death. Maybe you were thinking of a different article? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Check the history for the activity around Nick Berg's beheading (it will be obvious from the edit summary's.

Is there any clear evidence that Zarqawi is alive at all? And I'm not talking about grainy pictures of a hooded man claiming to be Zarqawi, or other similar claims and third-hand reports. Is Zarqawi just another global brand of terrorism? Most of the media seem to accept he's alive and busy doing evil in Iraqi, but is there a basis for this or is it just an assumption? - pir 13:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi just died

Zarqawi/Iraq myth

Alright, the whole story about Zarqawi being the mastermind and chief organiser of terrorism in Iraq is probably a myth, based on another intelligence "mistake". That's what an article in the respected conservative British paper Daily Telegraph suggests [8]. Don't know if the article will remain available without subscription, so I'll post the first few paragraphs here (fair use):

How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind By Adrian Blomfield outside Fallujah (Filed: 04/10/2004)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man', according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.

Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.

Zarqawi fuels his ambition with the release of a video of the beheading of Nick Berg

US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".

"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.

"Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one."

- pir 11:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi and attacks in Iraq

Today (or yesterday) the U.S. began lauching sustained bombing attacks against Falujah. The reason was that the Alawi government demanded that the people of the city hand over Zarqawi, and the people of the city did not. Given his unknown whereabouts, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city did not turn over Zarqawi because he wasn't there. Could this be incorporated into the article? caralho de buceta? Also, just today, the U.S. finally froze the assets of Tawhid and Jihad, the group allegedly tied to Zarqawi. That's right; until October 15, 2004, the U.S. had allowed T&J funds to flow freely through American banks. (source) Could this be incorporated as well? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

The first item hasn't really got much to do with Zarqawi. It's basically just the same propaganda trick they played with Saddam, saying he had to hand over the WMD or else he would face invasion, when it was quite obvious he couldn't hand them over because he didn't have any. Now they tell Fallujans they have to hand over Zarqawi, or else their city will be flattened, when it's relatively clear he's not in Fallujah. It's a cynical joke. Apart from the fact that it is terrorism in its purest form to use violence against civilians, to achieve political aims, the same old Nazi terror tactic of collective punishment. But then again, since Zarqawi seems to be little more than the pin-up villain that both Tawhid and Jihad and the "Coalition" use, maybe it does belong in the article.

About the asset freezing thing: they did the same thing in the UK yesterday. It's also a sick joke, because there are almost certainly no Tawhid and Jihad funds in the UK, and I would guess the same is true for the US. I read their money comes from Saudi Arabia, and it's mainly about sending a signal to our Saudi friends. But it really belongs to the Tawhid and Jihad article. To be honest, all the Iraq war propaganda is of such bad quality that I'm beginning to feel insulted. - pir 03:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi in Fallujah?: Taken from a DOD briefing[9]

Q Do you think the terrorist leaders will stay? Not saying whether you think Zarqawi is there or not, but do you think there is a cell structure there that is prepared to fight U.S. forces?

GEN. MYERS: I think the most I'm fair to say is that -- well, time will tell. Some will probably stay, some probably will leave or have left.

Don't know exactly where to put this, but someone should add mention of Content discribed here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880

In response to the paragraphs from "zarqawi myth" piece, I think it should be removed. A lot has happened since Oct 16, like Zarqawi's allegence to al-Qaeda and bin Laden's audiotaped endorsement of al-Zarqawi.

What's this Mabus Crap?

I'm removing the story of Mabus and Nostradamus. The person who wrote it said "it is OK to report relevant views of people according to Wikipedia rules" but this is not a relevant view. The whole theory comes from a Nostradamus site which also lists Howard Dean and Dick Cheney as potential candidates for "Mabus." I just don't think this belongs here. --csloat 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there are many theories about MABUS, and one of them is that it is Bush. However, in his case that would not be so interesting or important to report, as it not so interesting fact that someone would have this theory. The theory about MABUS in the case of Abu Masub is however intriguing and interesting - some people do consider it (not just on that site) to be a case, and it is worth reporting it. If there is a prophecy about someone than this should be reported in the site, even if you think that the prophecy is nonsense (as it is in my case, but I find it a relevant fact that there IS such a prophecy, in interpretations of many people). The wikipedia should REPORT about believes of people, even if you disagree what they believe in. Some people (bilion or so) believe that Jesus Christ resurected, and it is OK to report that here. Some people (probably many milions) believe there is something in Nostradamus prophecies, and many more find them intriguing. There is a well known prophecy about MABUS, the third antichrist, and this should be reported in wikipedia - it has much more place than some arbitrary speculations about what happens in year 2634 (that is in Wikipedia too). So I am adding this back, together with the theory about MABUS.

I see what you're saying, but this is a biography piece. Things can be interesting, lots of people can believe them, and yet not be relevant to the particular page under discussion. Perhaps this would work more in the "MABUS" page - with a link to this one to show the biography of the person the theory is about. Maybe, and I express no opinion about it, with a link on this page to that. --GeorgeOrr 02:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But prophecies about people, or something that is viewed as such, IS relevant to their biography - it can often affect their lives and biographies significantly.

So far, it has NOT affected his life significantly, and it's basically a bit of speculation not very well-connected to his life. It certainly doesn't deserve an extensive treatment - at MOST a link to the MABUS page in a "See Also" section. Graft 16:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You say it's been "discussed on the talk page" when placing back the information. Doesn't look like a lot of discussion, here.... --BesigedB ^(talk) 17:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• And what has been discussed seems to be leaning against inclusion. You say "it can often affect their lives and biographies significantly." CAN being the opperative word. Can you site a source that this particular prophecy has affected him directly? Is there any evidence that he even knows about it let alone is affected by it? --64.94.180.150 23:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be relevant to their bio if in fact it affected their lives significantly. It hasn't. A lot of people believe in Tarot readings, and find them interesting and believe them to be relevant. But if someone went to a local fortune teller and asked them to interpret the cards concerning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi I wouldn't expect to see the results posted here ... unless it was he who went or in some way had been affected by it. -- GeorgeOrr 02:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been watching this page for a while, and the Mabus conspiracy/mythology gets inserted so frequently that I believe it should be included, either as a section of this page, or at mabus. Something brief! Anyone who wishes to expound on the Mabus-Zarqawi link should put it in the Mabus section.Yeago 05:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia I see a lot of pages have a string of one or two people constantly trying to add irrelevant sections. The rest of the community takes turns deleting it, patiently explaining why it's irrelevant, and then removing it again. One person, or even a few, repeatedly adding something irrelevant doesn't make it relevant. As you suggest, add it to a different page (like the Mabus page for instance) but not on a page where it has no relevance. I would completely change that view if someone could post on this discussion evidence that shows this prophecy has had a significant affect on the subject of the bio. --GeorgeOrr 01:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's where I differ--I think this Mabus connection is an interesting piece of 'trivia', which neccessarily has absolutely no significance whatsoever. It would be highly unusual to make reference to Zarqawi in the Mabus article, but make no mention of Mabus in the Zarqawi article. Typically, articles cross-connect. I would agree with you if maybe 50 or more people were up for the Mabus award, but the Nostradamus prophecy has only been interpreted to be a select few people. You said one or two people but I believe several more have attempted to interject Mabus trivia. I am in favor of adding a small tidbit about Mabus, and then telling future Nostradamus nuts to keep it to the Mabus section.Yeago 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and I can't believe anyone is willing to defend this stuff. It makes Wikipedia look silly. It's fine to include your theories about Mabus on the Nostradamus page or the Mabus page, but not here. There's nothing wrong with a one-way link on the mabus page listing Zarqawi as one of the possible candidates for Mabus, but no mention of Mabus on this page. The same way you could have a page on Robert Fisk that mentions he wrote an article about Zarqawi, without putting Fisk on the Zarqawi page. No real encyclopedia would include such superstitions in a biography entry. I know wikipedia is different but it aspires to similar scholarly standards. --csloat 06:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

........

This article is the victim of so much corruptive editing, I wouldn't be suprised to know that it is the victim of some censorship program somewhere. I'll say no more....

I remember checking up on this article a few months ago and discovering all info about his death had been removed. Ayeum...

When you notice such things, check the "history" page and find (and re-post) the missing information if you can. That is the best way to deal with such edits over the long term. The history feature ensures that no information - useful or not - is ever really "deleted."

--csloat 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image debate

First 88.wtvr.wtvr.wtvr says "unverified," now heshe says copyright. WTf?Yeago 23:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disinformation campaign

The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign.

Source? A disinformation campaign on whose part, the US military or Zarqawi's organization? Descendall

• The source is the 9/11 Commission Report. They don't say whose part, but they seem to mean Zarqawi's part. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Zarquawi walking on the new video released by Pentagon also does not look like somebody with prosthetic leg!

Drunk or not?

An anon editor erased the sentence about Zarqawi growing up poor, getting arrested for sexual assault, and drinking heavily. This stuff has been part of the page for a long time and nobody saw fit to remove it before. Who originally put it in? Is it accurate? If so, I think it's reasonable to include this information, "prurient" or no. --csloat 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is the victim of so much indiscriminant and undocumented additions and removals. I don't know if it is still so, but I checked back a couple of months ago to find nothing about his being killed (which the CIA at one point had said). Now suddenly he's alive and well and responsible for everything. That's not to say that there's some Vast right wing conspiracy, however, its just another example of something just suddenly disappearing.Yeago 23:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sentences in Jordan

"Sometime in 2001, Zarqawi was arrested again in Jordan but was soon released. Later, he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for plotting the attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel.[9]"

Then

"Zarqawi was again sentenced in absentia in Jordan; this time, his sentence was death"

Which one is correct?

DaFLM.

Biased article

This article is biased against the United States and perpetuates "conspiracy theories" rather than allege that they exist. Juan Cole is an incredibly polemic source, why not provide some balance on this issue? Stating a lie over and over again eventually makes everyone reference it as fact.

What, in specific, are you referring to? General bromides mean little... Graft 21:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the parent has no specific point to make, other than to whine about Juan Cole -- who, by the way, may have opinions, but his credentials and expertise make him a good source of information. Besides it isn't like he is somehow "pro-Zarqawi." Yeesh. csloat 00:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

Is he a Jordanian or a Palestinian? There are conflicting reports on this? PatGallacher 15:16, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

The background section of the article says he is the son of Palestinian refugees. -- Geo Swan 17:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, I can read, but at another point it says "Powell mistakenly referred to Zarkawi as a Palestinian" and he is normally described as a Jordanian. Can someone clarify? PatGallacher 23:33, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

The USA is the melting pot nation. Other nations aren't. Merely being born in some countries doesn't make you a citizen. Without regard to whether being born in Jordan makes the son of Palestinian refugees a Jordanian citizen, that doesn't mean real Jordanians would have thought of him as a Jordanian. It doesn't mean that he would see himself as a Jordanian, not a Palestinian.

As for Powell, I don't think there is any mystery there. Tenet duped Powell. And when he didn't lie to him, he briefed him very poorly. This gaffe is just a minor example Powell complained about the deeply inaccurate and inadequate briefings he was given. He was the member of the Bush administration with the greatest reputation for integrity. -- Geo Swan 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that people are only "Palestinian" when it suits their cause. The media refuses to label this terrorist, Zarqawi, as a "Palestinian" because of his obvious atrocities, however, they and Wikipedia continue to label Al-Arian and Arafat, born in Kuwait and Egypt respectively, as "Palestinians". Let's face it, they are Arab Muslim terrorists, lets just call them that.

No; people are only "Palestinian" when they are actually of Palestinian origin. Zarqawi is not the son of Palestinian refugees; he is from a well-to-do family of Bedouin origin that has been in Jordan for at least 200 years.--csloat 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Al Zarqawi is Jordanian, he is not even a palestinian refugee, he is an original refugee. It is true that his true last name "Al-Khalayleh" kinda gives the impression that impression that he is from "Al Khaleel" (Hebron), but unlike the name implies, he is an actual Jordanian and this is a fact, trust me. "Al Khalayleh" family is actually bedouin. Eshcorp 14:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is blatantly POV!

Of all the Iraq-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia, this is one of the most biased. Zarqawi is not just wanted as a terrorist, he IS an ADMITTED terrorist. According to every Definition of Terrorism on Wikipedia, he IS a terrorist. Therefore, he should be called one. Since this is an encyclopedia, it doesn't have to read like a wanted poster (I'd like that personally,) but it does have to be accurate. I hope the following links are proof enough:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ansar-al-sunna.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

I know the prevailing view on Wikipedia that 'terrorist' implies a negative connotation. This is because a terroristic act is negative. If this was an article about Charles Manson, it would call him a murderer. That's what he was. BQAggie2004 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I do strongly agree, I would very much like to see the word "terrorist" in the first line of the article as a main definition of who this person is. A terrorist. Eshcorp 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV

I made some modifications to the original, any questions/comments/bitches/gripes/complaints are welcome.

I removed the following paragraph, because I could not find any legitimate news sources to back the claims up. Some of these claims come from Scott Ritter who is a controversial character. Also, the link from the Daily Telegraph is obviously biased. I haven't looked at the Russian link, but any webpage named 'war_nerd' does not appear credible. It's like getting your information from a web correspondant named 'BabyFaceHotMama094718.' I simply question the credibility of the sources:

"In one report, the conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph described as myth the claim that Zarqawi was the head of the "terrorist network" in Iraq. According to a U.S. military intelligence source, the Zarqawi myth resulted from faulty intelligence obtained by the payment of substantial sums of money to unreliable and dishonest sources. The faulty intelligence was accepted, however, because it suited US government political goals, according to an unnamed intelligence officer.[10] The Zarqawi myth has also been purported to be the product of U.S. war propaganda designed to promote the image of a demonic enemy figure to help justify continued U.S. military operations in Iraq[11], perhaps with the tacit support of terrorist elements who wish to use him as a propaganda tool or as a distraction.[12]"

I also could not find any credible information reguarding a disinformation campaign. If this was really true, American and British press would have jumped at the chance to publish it. I cannot find it anywhere, except for questionable cites:

"The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign." BQAggie2004 20:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your objections to these sources is bogus. The Telegraph is a conservative paper, true, but that in itself does not impugn its credibility. You haven't even looked at the other link because you don't like the nickname -- it claims to be an alternative newspaper; a silly nickname alone is not enough reason for destroying its credibility. You also do not make any claims against the other article, which cites several newspapers. These stories may be just stories, but they are cited often enough they should not just be ignored here.--csloat 21:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does this story not appear in any mainstream publication? CNN, Fox News, BBC, none of them carry this story. Even the liberal papers like the New York Times and Boston Globe don't have anything like this. They all would have jumped at this kind of story. I am not familiar with the Telegraph, but that article was anything but unbiased. To me, parts of it read more like an editorial.

The quote from the article: "Yet it now seems that the intelligence on which such claims are based is haphazard, scanty and contradictory."

If this is true, why hasn't it been reported in the mainstream press? We can't assume that there's a huge, right-wing conspiracy over the US and Britian to keep it out of the news. That doesn't make sense.

The reason I question the 'war nerd' article is because I know that if I personally was using news articles to write anything academic, articles with a name like that probably wouldn't be acceptable sources. Even if the information is correct, it's very hard to take a source seriously when it comes from an 'alternative news' source. What is an 'alternative' newspaper? Does it give 'extreme' points of view? Is it read by people who like 'alternative' music? As I read down the page, porn links are popping up. '200 Beautiful Russian Brides a Week?' 'E-mail thousands of beautiful Russian ladies?' The only thing that I can say is that I should have opened the link earlier, I didn't realize that 'war nerd' is the name of the column.

Here are a few quotes from the front page. These are unedited and unexaggerated, and I include them to prove a point:

"How many Iraqis are trained up and ready to take over from the Americans? That number depends on how gullible - or high - you are. The eXile subjects a beer-drinking real estate agent to the whacky ups and downs of the Iraqi forces..."

""He liked to fuck whores in the ass, and not wear a condom, and then brag about it..." The incredibly sordid truth behind the bludgeoning death of Russia's spam villain..."

"The zany story of how the Washington Post's new correspondent, Peter Finn, helped sell a Pentagon-planted story about an Iraqi "victim" just in time to help shore up support for the war..."

www.exile.ru is clearly NOT a 'fair and balanced' news source.

I stand by my previous comments on calling Zarqawi and his 'insurgent' organization for what they are--terrorists. I feel this article should reflect the truth, reguardless of the validity of those news sources. BQAggie2004 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there is no right wing conspiracy; this appeared in a right wing paper. The line you quoted is anything but inaccurate and while this particular story may not have been picked up, the intel failures surrounding all of this stuff certainly has. Also I heard Octavia Nasr, a CNN translator and correspondent, articulate these views at a conference on Al Qaeda in December 2004, so it is not that far off the mainstream. The quote you erased included info about the publications making these claims so it is not inaccurate to include it - if you want to add reservations or refutations from more mainstream publications that would be terrific. I personally do not endorse these views, but I do think they are notable enough for inclusion. As for the "war ned" thing, that is the guy's email address - it is not his name, which is clearly on the article page. An "alternative news" source such as the Village Voice or LA Weekly in the US can be very credible, though you're right, this Russian one looks like a tabloid. I'll take that source out, but the claims about disinformation and mythology surrounding Zarqawi are quite notable without this article. As for the question of calling him a "terrorist" - I agree, but it is wrong to erase the fact that he is also a "militant" and is part of the "Iraqi insurgency."--csloat 23:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where British right-wing stands compared to American politics, I have heard that in general, the British are shifted either to the left or the right of what Americans call moderate, I'm not sure, I'm probably wrong.

Perhaps something should be written that could cast doubt on the 'myth' claims, if something should be found. My point is that if this was credible, it would be as well known as Bush's 'yellow-cake' reference in the State of the Union. That kind of news would be HUGE in the US. But as you said above, these were 'views.'

If you look at the web page, the name of the column is the 'War Nerd.' It might be his e-mail too.

Technically, I guess you are right about the 'terrorism' reference. After all, Ted Kyzenski (the Unibomber) was a terrorist, but I don't think he was a militant. It should be noted that Zarqawi is a 'gurrella leader' and a 'militant' and a 'terrorist.' I'd find facts to back my claims up, but they are already in the article. He's not just wanted for terrorism, he is a self-proclaimed terrorist. BQAggie2004 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The War Nerd article, incidentally, is analysis. It doesn't claim to give any new information on the subject. He's just trying to put the puzzle pieces together, which is very relevant to this article. I'm going to restore some of what was removed. - Nat Krause 08:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Other incidents

I have removed the phrase "Western-owned" from "three Western-owned hotels". While CNN would have you believe that all the hotels were U.S.-owned, the Radisson SAS in question is a Scandanavian-based chain and is owned and operated by Palestinian-Jordainians. - Cybjorg 11:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just read news that he has been dismissed as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If someone knows this for certain please update.

Terrorist or freedom fighter?

In the very first line Zarqawi is referred to as a terrorist. Where do you draw the line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Is it not better to preserve objectivism by saying something like ‘freedom fighter/terrorist’ or ‘viewed by some as a terrorist while others consider him to be a freedom fighter’?

History is written by the ‘victorers’ and it can be hard to distinguish who the good/bad guys are. Were the founding fathers of The United States of America freedom fighters or terrorist? Hezbollah? Chechnyens? The list goes on…

Per

Nobody considers Zarqawi a "freedom fighter." Some extreme Islamists may consider him a proud warrior, but the notion of "freedom fighter" is simply inappropriate here. "Terrorist" is not objective, perhaps, but it is descriptive, and it is based on the facts in front of everyone -- the targeting of civilians, the deliberate use of terror as an instrument of warfare, etc. IMHO, "psychopath" might be a more accurate description, but "terrorist" is certyainly more consistent with the way most of the world sees him, as well as with the way he represents himself. He most certainly does not lay claim to the basically Western notion "freedom fighter."--csloat 18:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, from an Islamic prosepective, he is a criminal who has killed many civilians. Nevertheless, from an objective position, he is FIGHTING U.S. occupation of Iraq, which could make him a freedom fighter. He represents the Sunni side of the freedom fight, while Sadr represents the Shia side. I'm sure they both hate each other, but they both hate the US as well. And no matter how much you sugarcoat it, it is an occupation. Actually it's a lot like the British takeover of India (if you have studied both, compare them) British took over, said they were doing Indians a favor and saving them from despotic rulers and in doing so killed thousands , tortured them, ridiculed them, called the freedom fighters terrorists etc. So we can compare it to that. Fkh82 01:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're just making stuff up. The term "freedom fighter" is a Western creation that has no resonance in Sunni or Shia culture in Iraq. Many Iraqis might see the Iraqi resistance as a heroic opposition to Western domination, but that is not the same as using the term "freedom fighter." The comparison to India is not unreasonable, but it also doesn't make Zarqawi or the Indian independence movement anything like "freedom fighters." Also I think it is ignorant to lump Zarqawi's fighters with the Sunni resistance to US occupation -- the latter is native Iraqi, while the former is made up of Islamists from all over with a religious mission that may or may not intersect with the Sunni resistance.-csloat 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Though my own opinion is that he is a terrorist, I believe many people think that he is a freedom fighter. And thoguh I really think it should be included that he is a terrorist even in the first line of the topic, I think it would be nice to make up a new section that has the same title as this one "Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?" whith some points about both POVs. Eshcorp 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again the Berg spin turns up in Wikipedia articles

>beheading American Nicholas Berg, a civilian

Except that Berg was an israeli citizen, which the USA and Israel tried to keep secret, but the Haaretz newspaper leaked the info. Berg had known and hard proven links to one of the 9/11 hijackers (shared dorm room and laptop with him). There is every reason to believe that Berg was involved with Mossad, which Zarkavi did indeed claim so.

So Berg was neither an American, nor a civilian. As a spy, he had no expectation to live and I have no problem with spies being killed, since espionage is an extra-judicary activity. Spies do expect to be executed since Ms. Mata Hari, almost 90 years ago.

?

I may be a bit of a biased source, but I do know Berg's family in the US. They were questioned following 9/11 and again following his execution, and no claims of his involvement with Mossad were ever made by the US government. Likely, you have no more information on this issue than the US government has (despite the US government's unreliability regarding intelligence), and if I were you, I would think twice before rushing to say that you have no problem with the execution of someone you don't know. Mysticfeline 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Mysticfeline

vprotected

This article is no longer protected. Should we remove the {{vprotected}}tag?

It still remains protected. --Hillhead15 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Main Photo

I can't help but feel that a dark, poorly-exposed and brooding photo is fairly POV in itself, when describing your "enemy" - I'm not going to replace it myself though, without first soliciting for a couple other opinions and suggestions for replacements (I have no problem using the photo in the article, but it should not be the main photograph) Sherurcij 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think we're likely to find a picture of the man reclining on a sofa wearing jeans, a shirt open to expose his immaculately-groomed chest hair and a smile. Joking aside, it's either the current photo, or some grainy photo taken from a distance that may or may not be him. --Last Malthusian 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That photo is the most famous photo of al Zarqawi, and that is why it is the first, I don't think that should be changed. Eshcorp 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PSYOP Cartoon Caption

Pretty minor, but the way I'm reading it the translation looks like it should be "Zarqawi" instead of "al-Zarqawi"? Is is Is

"Al-Zarqawi" and "bin Laden" are analogous in that they are both last names. Omitting "al" is the same mistake as removing "bin", I never heard "Laden" by itself before. -- Eagle^amn 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though the Arabic caption reads (?) just "Zarqawi"? Is is Is

True, the name alone is "Zarqawi", and, unlike "Bin Laden" Al can be taken out but doesn't need to be. It is extremely popular in jordan to actually add the prefix Al- ("the") to some of the last names. Removing the "Al" would just make more confusion, beside, it is correct as it is. Eshcorp 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Terrorist?

Who is the terrorist? Yanquis go home.