If the 2 soldiers capture was the work of the new leader we are in trouble

If this was the work of the guy who took over for Zarqawi, we are in trouble.

look at this:
- CAPTURED US soldiers on purpose.
- Held them.
- Tortured them.
- Set up a unit to find them. (Using 2 soldiers as bait)
- Attacked the set up unit.


This could get really bad, really fast.

Captured them and slit their throats - Sharia Law verdict.

I have seen it several places in just the last few minutes.

I guess this was his way of saying "hello" to the Bush people. Nice guy.

they supposedly heard from 'al-qaeda' in Iraq that he was responsible. It's a web rumor that smells like a Pentagon disinformation campaign to set up a new nemesis for Americans to direct their anger, fear, and ultimately, support for the continued troop presence in Iraq. Just a twist of a tyrants tounge will have the U.S. bogged down there, avenging some atrocity, mindless (the public as well) to the cycle of violent reprisals which began with our illegal invasion.

This situation just gets worse and worse. And Bush and his legions just look worse and worse.

I think this is the worst possible thing that could have happened to Bush.

And I don't think its a web rumor. Even the BBC is picking up on the message to the new leader - that he is being praised for his actions against the enemy Americcans.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/06/20/story264188.html

that was the initial report. whatever follows is certain to have a bias.

So, this 'splinter' group is using the elevated status our government gave this man immediately after they killed Zarqawi to springboard their own propaganda.

Don't you think it's strange that in all of this time we've never once heard directly from this new 'head of Iraq al-Qaeda? All we have is enhanced photos and the promotion of tyrants. It smells.

What I think is that this guy is one of bin Laden's own. And we are in big trouble. He is called "the Egyptian" and bin Laden puts in Egyptians.

I think we did bin Laden a huge favor by getting rid of a guy he didn't like at all - al Zarqwai was a loose cannon. We don't know. One of bin Laden's own may have given someone the tip where the guy was.

seriously. Who are we relying on for our info about this new nemesis? I've had enough of the demonizing game from the State Dept.

to Lehrer and reports from the NYT. They give a completely different picture.

And since nobody ever said Zarqawi was particularly smart, it won't take much for his successor to be smarter than him.

One thing's for sure... the new guy is smarter than *, Rummy, Cheney, Rice and all those other bastards put together.

Studied under bin Laden's #2 guy for years and years.

He hasn't left many footprints.

So far he seems to be doing pretty good. Seems to be trying to get on the map in a hurry. Two of our guys brutally beheaded. 19 bombs left all around the bodies. We never saw any kind of movement - no evidence of people out there planting the bombs (according to John Burns last nite on Lehrer.) We missed it completely.

And a few other bombs in Bahgdad in the last 3 days.

I'd say we've got us a guy to really worry about here.

that gave the report of the new nemesis doing the killing was already dismissed as bogus. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/world/middleeast/21iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

An Internet statement, posted Tuesday under the name of the Mujahedeen Shura, said the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had "slaughtered" the two Americans. The Mujahedeen Shura, an umbrella group, claims Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a member. The Arabic word used in the posting, "nahr," denoted the cutting of the throat, and it has been used by jihadi groups when they have beheaded their victims.

The authenticity of the statement, like many that are posted on the Internet, could not be verified. The provenance of this one was called into question by SITE, a Washington group that tracks Islamic militant groups.

Rita Katz, the group's director, said she believed that the message was a fake, given the manner and place in which it was posted on the Internet. Indeed, the message disappeared from one jihadi Web site, Al Hesba, shortly after it appeared.

"There is a straightforward way that Al Qaeda posts their messages," Ms. Katz said. "This was not theirs."

He said the first message was very general and no one was sure about it.

I don't believe anything coming out of washington anymore.

The second one yesterday was very specific and people believed it. Said it was very much 8th Century Islam - and scary. I remember that about bin Laden's bunch. They were like listening to 15th Century Islamists - full of dreams and portents. It was very scary stuff.

just a group claiming responsibility for the killings with a lot of hype behind it. All of these tyrants, ours included play this game the same. Both use violence. killings, and fear to yoke their 'followers' into a dependence on them for retribution against the latest atrocity coming from either side. Since the Bush regime set all of this off in Iraq with the invasion, they bear responsibility for the terms of their racket. It goes like this:

First, blow something up, something big, with overwhelming force; shock and awe. Next, either wait for the reprisals or provoke more by putting your 'followers' in harm's way. Gin it up with a few more spectacular atrocities, and you get your counter attack. Use that counterattack and the inevitable casualties to lay the justifications down to continue the game. Justifications like 'prestige' , 'success' and 'victory'. Then you turn to the population you've trampled on and you tell them that you are there to protect them from the enemy you've provoked. You put them in the middle as targets. You say to them:

"Did you see what happened to your neighbor down the street? He got pretty banged up. You know . . . We could protect you. Just let us set up shop in the back. You'll keep running things like you normally do in the front, and we'll do what we do behind that closed door. If you don't want our help, there's no telling what might happen. Who's side ARE you on anyway?"

The U.S. and their puppet media put out the report about Zarqawi's 'successor' immediately after they killed him. They were panicked that the public might just ask them why we were still there, since it appeared we got the man they'd been claiming was the center of the violence in Iraq; denying the true nature of the resistance to the puppet authority they enabled into power. The picked a name that had never crossed their lips before. Strange how such a dangerous 'threat' was not announced before Zarqawi's death. More peculiar how we've NEVER heard a peep from this new nemesis.

Don't be surprised, or any more alarmed than usual, that the resistance is using the moniker of al-Qaeda as their calling card. It makes them registered players in the Bush regime's protection game.

Exit the U.S., diminish the self-important posturing as al-Qaeda from these elements of Iraq's militarized resistance.

They think the terrorists are afraid of holding people for days in fear of getting caught. Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I don't terrorists like this are scared of much.

:scared: :hide: