Jump to content

Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Savidan (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 9 June 2006 (i agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive1

and this one Rhymeless 05:41, 1 Jul 2004 (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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"zuh-WARR-ee". retarded but an h-drop is easier. Ka-zizzlMc 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, I guess it's not super important now. some legislator just said "Zuh-KAR-ee". let's start saying mohometitan for "muslim". CrackityKzz 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
I'm flipping through furiously. I'm surprised no one else has broken this yet. --TJive 07:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NBC anchor said a press conference is going on. --TJive 07:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think pretty soon it should change to "Death".  :) --TJive 07:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Press conference on CNN right now. -Loren 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi PM confirms it. Cheering and clapping in the audience. -Loren 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Aide to Iraqi PM confirms, according to CNNI. --TJive 07:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES!--Mystalic 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Based on what? — ceejayoz talk 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
CNN stated it was on Wed which makes it the 7th --Petahhhh 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Early Wed. morning according to the NBC news cut-in here just now... - Adolphus79 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

>>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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
Okay, should I change the source info? AmiDaniel (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... I'm the noob here... LOL - Adolphus79 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, just changed it and then noticed the AP watermark at the bottom. Reverting... AmiDaniel (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Can you get me a source URL on it? Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here is the exact page I pulled it from... - Adolphus79 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
should we change that to (c. October 1966), just for accuracy's sake? - Adolphus79 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be changed, yes. Joey 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist?

Who is the terrorist? Yanquis go home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.179.235 (talk • contribs)

I assume you meant to say Yankees? (psst... the whole UN is in Iraq, not just America...) have fun, and happy editing... - Adolphus79 12:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by UN you mean Britain (who aren't really very "good" members of the UN) and the random clean-up crew from other countries vs. the 130,000+ Americans, then yes, the whole UN is in Iraq =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, just cuz we started the invasion doesn't mean we didn't have to call for help... look who's in charge of our country right now... LOL - Adolphus79 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated corpse

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

if you can find one we're allowed to use... LOL - Adolphus79 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I found a picture, but I think this one would belong to CNN. --TJive 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another link. I think the picture is Reuters's, then. --TJive 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it's actually a slightly different angle. --TJive 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2006/june/ogrish-dot-com-zarqawidead.jpg --86.4.56.196 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ooops. That's me. Forgot to sign-in. --BlueTruth 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Are you sure about that? The 'r' comes before the 'q'. --Smack (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technically because of assimilation the "L" isn't pronounced: "Az-zark'woo-iie". -Fsotrain09 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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!! — Preceding unsigned comment 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here's a good start. --TJive 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Is he a terrorist or a millitant?

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

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)[reply]
I'd say he adequately fits the description of both Antimatter 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact a section "Terrorist or Militant" would greatly improve this article. Mieciu K 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Finally Dead

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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.


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)[reply]

It's highly likely that the kid would have been trained to be a Jihadist

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. HenryFlower 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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...

  • 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?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi&oldid=57626727"