Zarqawi Built Global Jihadist Network on Internet

The New York Times reports: Zarqawi Built Global Jihadist Network on Internet.

Quote:

Over the last two years, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi established the Web as a powerful tool of the global jihad, mobilizing computer-savvy allies who inspired extremists in Iraq and beyond with lurid video clips of the bombings and beheadings his group carried out.

Is that meant to imply that he only became a world threat after the U.S. went to war with Iraq?

In another article the Times reports: How Surveillance and Betrayal Led to a Hunt's End

Quote:

An informant inside Al Qaeda provided the critical piece of intelligence that led them to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a Pentagon official.

Zarqawi was operating in Iraq before the war. Al Qaeda was, therefore, operating in Iraq before we invaded. Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11th. Therefore, it does follow that there was arguably some justification for going to war with Iraq.

What say you?

Comments

[Dubliner]

Attempts to justify the US -"war" on Iraq are futile indeed. The weapons of Mass destruction which formed the basis for the attack were non-existent, and there was no intelligence whatever to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. This man was part of a Jihad group in Iraq but only later changed the group to AlQueda joining forces with Bin Laden. So the effect of the US attack on Iraq was to consolidate terrorists against the west in general. The US have bitten off morethat they can chew in Iraq and this could cost many more lives -bith US and Iraqi before it ends. George W. simply wanted to fiunish what Dad started - and what a price to pay!
Thank God Ireland is a neutral nation.

[JDM]

i want to cry. these are just men's games.
STOP BLOWING UP THINGS!
Why do they have to keep blowing up people, nations, families, etc. to "prove themselves?" You would think the US would be better behaved by now, but it's a Republican office in charge...the kind of mindset that favors the death penalty. Stupid. Frustrating.

By killing ol' Abu the US has only added fuel to the fire. The blood of muslim martyrs will have it's own effects.

God bless your neutral nation, Dubliner.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

The previous two comments are perhaps the most pathetic and ignorant I have ever seen on a Catholic blog (and that's saying something, having been a refugee from Mark Shea's blog).

Dubliner and JDM, it is a matter of record that Saddam Hussein sponsored and encouraged terrorism. He provided sanctuary for one of the most notorious Palestinian terrorists, Abu Nidal. He had a terrorist training site on the outskirts of Baghdad (Salman Pak), complete with an airplane so terrorists could practice hijackings. He paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000.

Besides, he brutalized and tyrannized his own people for more than a quarter century. Would you like to have him back?

You ask people to "stop blowing up things," JDM. Why don't you tell that to the Islamic terrorists who want to establish their totalitarian Caliphate across the world? And if they don't listen (which they probably wouldn't), what do you plan to do?

Sometimes, the only way to fight evil is with violence. If you don't believe that, just look at WWII. Dubliner, where do you think Europe would be right now if pacifists like you and JDM held sway? Likely divided between the Nazis and Communists, those benevolent protectors of human rights and Christian faith.

[ann]

JCM and Dubliner:

When your friendly neighborhood Muslim knocks on your door and "invites" you to accept Islam, that Allah is God and his "prophet" is Muhammed," you have three choices:
1. Accept Islam.
2. Pay the jizya, the poll-tax on non-Muslims, which is the cornerstone of an entire system of humilating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law.
3. War with Muslims.
(from the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer) page 37.

Pick one and good luck. You are both delusional if you think that the proponents of this bogus "religion of peace" are not looking for every opportunity to BLOW YOU AND ME UP!"

[JDM]

"The previous two comments are perhaps the most pathetic and ignorant I have ever seen on a Catholic blog" -Joseph
Oh that's right. They are pathetic and ignorant because they aren't in accordance with your thoughts, right? Figures. You turn a deaf ear, just like a Republican, to those who, in your mind, are "inferior."

"Sometimes, the only way to fight evil is with violence. If you don't believe that, just look at WWII." -Joseph
We've progressed since WWII, Joseph. We respect our past, but must look forward. There are advances of all kinds being made. These advances in society force us to leave brutish modes of the past. Violence should never be tolerated.

"...pacifists like you and JDM..." -Joseph
You confuse peaceful and educated measures with a distorted idea of pacifism. I'm sorry that your not very enlightened in that area.

ann,
First of all, this is America, where there is freedom of religion. No muslim has the right to come knocking at my door in such a manner. Americans are well-educated and practice in religious liberty - behavior like that would not be tolerated.
Second, under Bush, that is exactly what is happening to the Muslim world. Americans are over there in their territory, knocking at their doors, asking them to accept our democracy. I can't stand the Muslim rigidness, but we have no right to impose our way of life upon them. Really, the Muslims should stand up for themselves. I think they would if the U.S would let them. Then again, maybe the Muslim people have a very wicked idea of democracy by now, thanks to Bush, and want nothing to do with it. They rather stay oppressed.

Whew. TGIF. I feel older than my dear grandmother on this blog.

"Oh that's right. They are pathetic and ignorant because they aren't in accordance with your thoughts, right? Figures. You turn a deaf ear, just like a Republican, to those who, in your mind, are "inferior.""

JDM
This statement demonstrates you to be a bigot. I don't recall anyone calling anyone "inferior" on this conversation. Your arguments, on the other hand, ARE inferior.

"We've progressed since WWII, Joseph. We respect our past, but must look forward. There are advances of all kinds being made. These advances in society force us to leave brutish modes of the past. Violence should never be tolerated."
Wow! It's been a long time since I've heard that one. So we've "progressed". I think the existence of legalized abortion disproves that point all by itself.

"You confuse peaceful and educated measures with a distorted idea of pacifism. I'm sorry that your not very enlightened in that area."
Perhaps you could enlighten us neanderthals, JDM. Living as I do in NYC, I get an up close and personal idea of what "pacifists" are like. When they're not busy smashing shop windows and shouting vile epithets at police, they spend their time equating George Bush with Adolf Hitler, usually while sporting a Che Guevara t-shirt (apparently losing the irony). I don't want to lump you in with that crowd, JDM, but your arguments sound hackneyed and familiar. We're getting a real world example of what your pacificism is accomplishing right now in Iran. They're playing the West for fools.

When are you going to learn, Dubliner and JDM, that there are bad people in the world that you cannot reason with, you cannot argue with, and who will absolutely not stop, no matter how much you threaten them with really nasty letters, no matter how many diplomats you throw at them, and no matter how many times you threaten to refer them to the UN subcommittee on the Commission for Sitting on our Hands and Collecting our Money under the Table.

"Attempts to justify the US -"war" on Iraq are futile indeed. The weapons of Mass destruction which formed the basis for the attack were non-existent, and there was no intelligence whatever to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks."
Dubliner,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disabuse you of some common misperceptions. WMD were not, I repeat, not THE basis for the attack. Defying 17 UN resolutions, firing at US and British airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone, and sponsoring terrorism were. WMD were just an additional reason. If you don't believe me, go back and read the transcript of GWB's speech to Congress, or Colin Powell's speech to the UN. And by the way, every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French, the Germans, and the Chinese thought that Iraq had active stockpiles of the WMD. If you had actually bothered to read the Duelfer report, not that the Beeb or the Guardian would let you know of its contents, you would find out that Saddam maintained his latent capacity to produce biological weapons and much of his nuclear technology, and that he was just biding his time, buying off French and Russian politicians via Oil-for-Food until he could get the sanctions lifted. And by the way, the statement in GWB's speech where he stated that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger IS CORRECT. It has been completely vindicated. BTW, no member of the adminstration EVER claimed that Iraq was directly linked to the 9/11 attacks. That was a lie cooked up by the usual suspects on the left, and endlessly repeated until, Joseph Goebbels-like, it becomes "truth". There is ample evidence that Saddam lent support to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda members and even sponsored a terrorist "convention" in Baghdad.

"This man was part of a Jihad group in Iraq but only later changed the group to AlQueda joining forces with Bin Laden."

Actually he fled there after getting wounded in Afghanistan fighting the Americans. Wonder how it is he got into the country so easily AND received medical care at a hospital reserved for Baathist officials?
"So the effect of the US attack on Iraq was to consolidate terrorists against the west in general."
You got any evidence for that? If you actually bother to read the writings of Osama and his compatriots, you'll realize they consolidated against the West a long time ago. OBL declared "war" against the West in 1998.
"The US have bitten off morethat they can chew in Iraq and this could cost many more lives -bith US and Iraqi before it ends."
Actually, we are making slow, sometimes excruciatingly slow, but real progress. Unfortunately, telegenic IED explosions make the news, rather than the real progress on the ground.

"Thank God Ireland is a neutral nation"
Only because your country is strategically worthless, unless one wants a base for launching an assault on Iceland.

[vincero]

Well said Anonymous,

As to learning nothing from WW2, I'd say we've learned a lot. We've learned that you can't just feed a mad dog a few scraps to appease him and not expect him to come back for more.

On Oct 3, 1938, Neville Chamberlain addressed the British Parliament. Among his remarks were, "I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done."

They looked forward to consolidation all right. Less than a year later, on Sept 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. And the consolidation was on.

Here's an intereresting quote by Gustave Flaubert. "Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times."

[Confused_in_MN]

"These advances in society force us to leave brutish modes of the past. Violence should never be tolerated."

How are you planning to not tolerate violence? Merriam-Webster defines tolerance, when viewing the most logically applicable definition of the word provided, as "to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction." Are you intending to not tolerating violence by prohibiting it by writ, or contradicting the violence by verbal or written condemnation, without enforcing those prohibitions or contradictions with an actual physical penalty (a hindrance) for the commission of violence?

I've never understood that concept. If the moral indignation and condemnation of those from societies which have advanced beyond brutish modes of redress is the only hardship faced by those who commit violent acts, what is to prevent the violent from dominating the non-violent through physical coercion?

Maybe I am just too simple to understand your "peaceful and educated measures." How many must die, either cumulatively or in a single attack, before resistance beyond the verbal is pursued? Or, is it a case of always opposing violence and following a path of non-resistance while attempting to convince the violent of the error of their ways?

If it is the former, then I hope you do not lose anyone too close before the brutish amongst us quell the violent opposed to us. If is the latter, however, then it is not a case of others confusing peaceful and educated measures with pacifism; it is a case of you not understanding (or wanting to accept) the definition of pacifism.

[Beeline aka Ann]

I wonder how much the American Revolution
buttressed up against 'Just War' theory.
Afterall, our main line of logic for the war
with Britian was 'No Taxation without Representation'.

Seems we had more 'Just War' theory on our
side in an 'Unfinished and Justified War' with
Iraq then we had when the Colonies went to war
against Britain over representation.

Just a quick thought!

In not tolerating violence, of course violence should not be used.
Violence indicates a course of action. There are other courses to take.

oh wait, wait! Let me say..."OTOH!"
(Thanks, Joseph...haha)

Should I add that tyranny should not be used to fight tyranny, and that sin should not be used to fight sin?

Of course, it's all easier said than done.

Dear Beeline, just a "quick" thought? Yeah, but it has a lot of baggage! The colonies did not initially "go to war" against Britain. Initially, they were standing up for their basic rights. The Brits brought over troops for "disciplinary measures", and that's when the defense took up the fight.

In my opinion, communication is the key. Without proper communication, there can be no civilized aciton. Without the proper communication, there will be war.

[James]

There is something so smarmy about pacifists. They so often revele in their self-righteous peace and love talk. It's so great. You can't be challenged (because we're just violent neanderthals that have to be put up with), you brook no criticism, and yet you enjoy all the protections of the military and police.
Thanking God for Ireland's neutrality is quite something. Using this rationale, why don't you say, "Thank God for those neutral Swedes" during WWII and communism. How can you get the the most monumental events of the millenium wrong and say you're neutral? It's cowardice or absolute nihilism manifested, simple as that.
Imagine someone saying, "I'm neutral on mass murder, genocide, and rape room." Yeah, thanks for being on the planet...what a waste.

[JDM]

James
I get your point. Really, looking paste the, um, sharpness with which it was written, I really respect what you said.

But don't assume I'm a hopeless coward.
Pu-leeze! I've just NEVER stood back and questioned what I believed before...until last year sometime. So, mercy! Pu-leeze!
I'll find my ground. Okay, okay, I found it. But now I have to consider how it relates to the bigger issues in life, okay? Satisfied? Geez Lueez....

After all my posts, I should put something like:
*ATTN* Thoughts under construction.

Geez lueez...

[A Simple Sinner]

JDM,

Actually, that is fair and I respect that in the course of discourse here you are free and quick to admit you are thinking things through.

We might not agree, but I agree thinking is a good thing!

[Nicola]

Hi,
Please visit my website, www.guerraonline.it
I belive that is very inerent to your topic...
maybe you could leave a comment, or even pass it on on...
Thanks
Nicola