[dadyamaru]

The question here is what does the death of Al Zarqawi mean to the occupation in Iraq? And why did the U.S. and UK leaders hailed his death as victory?

It’s been a long time since news agencies carried good news involving the occupation “achievements” in Iraq. And to portray Al Zarqawi as a big enemy of justice, a dangerous criminal who endangered the occupation’s “honourable mission” in Iraq, or the "most vicious persecutor" of the insurgency, as the British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it, made a hero out of the U.S. and its war allies.

Blair and Bush needed to come up with a false story to find a way out of the bleak situation they’re facing in Iraq.

The so-called insurgency groups in Iraq are being portrayed as either supporters of the former regime led by Saddam Hussein, or members of Al Qaeda network.

But the fact of the matter is that the ongoing unrest in Iraq, or the "insurgency" if you wish to call it, is a “low-level civil war,” the editorial on Scotsman said.


> Home > Conspiracy Theories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exaggerating significance of Al Zarqawi's death to fix the war image!
6/12/2006 8:00:00 PM GMT


Advertisement







May be the alleged Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, whom the U.S. military said it has killed in Iraq last week, had a link to some of the attacks that ripped through the region over the past few years, including Amman hotel bombing- This if we assumed that the man does exist- but the claim that he’s the one behind what Western media refers to as “insurgency”, is far from true, stated a recent article on The Scotsman.

The question here is what does the death of Al Zarqawi mean to the occupation in Iraq? And why did the U.S. and UK leaders hailed his death as victory?

It’s been a long time since news agencies carried good news involving the occupation “achievements” in Iraq. And to portray Al Zarqawi as a big enemy of justice, a dangerous criminal who endangered the occupation’s “honourable mission” in Iraq, or the "most vicious persecutor" of the insurgency, as the British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it, made a hero out of the U.S. and its war allies.

"Defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq and we will defeat them everywhere," said Mr. Blair, referring to Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda as if it’s the primary enemy in Iraq, and that it is a battle that can be won by normal Iraqis, which is utterly misleading.

Blair and Bush needed to come up with a false story to find a way out of the bleak situation they’re facing in Iraq.

The so-called insurgency groups in Iraq are being portrayed as either supporters of the former regime led by Saddam Hussein, or members of Al Qaeda network.

But the fact of the matter is that the ongoing unrest in Iraq, or the "insurgency" if you wish to call it, is a “low-level civil war,” the editorial on Scotsman said.

According to figures released last week by Baghdad’s morgue; 1,398 corpses were found in May alone, excluding those killed in explosions, or police and armed men.

“These are victims of the civil war that Blair will not admit exists,” the editorial added

What’s going in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda activities, again this if we assumed that the network still exists.

The turmoil that has plagued Iraq since the occupiers set foot in the country can’t be traced to Al Qaeda- Al Qaeda agents are latecomers to the scene of ethnic tension, which started under Saddam’s rule, and was fuelled by the occupation and the political vacuum created later on.

The U.S. President and the British Prime Minister reuse to see the true situation in Iraq. Bush says that "civil war" is a term used by “terrorists”, and Blair argues that the fact that the country’s both Shia and Sunni communities are represented in the new government, means that there is no ethnic strife.

Acknowledging that there’s a civil war in Iraq means that both governments, the U.S. and UK keep their troops for an extended period in Iraq, something both Blair and Bush can’t afford, given the domestic anger both leaders are facing over their lying about reasons for launching Iraq war.

Thus, to prepare for an early exit from the war, both leaders must turn a blind eye to the sectarian tension their war fuelled and might drown the country into a bloody civil war.
Exaggerating the significance of Al Zarqawi’s death is meant to fix the tarnished image of the occupation in Iraq. News that the U.S.-led occupation has finally killed Al Zarqawi gave America and its allies a rare good news story from Iraq.

But in the country itself, the death of the alleged Al Qaeda leader won’t make the slightest difference.

[teejay]

In your honest opinion what do you think is the cause of this Civil war.