Animals like Zarqawi, Al Qaida and the Taliban hate Shia’s and slaughter them, but the American’s still think Iran would give refuge to such people!
What sort of American logic is this?
Iraq’s Zarqawi not in Iran, says official
Iran denied on Sunday a British newspaper report that al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had fled to the Islamic republic after being seriously injured in a U.S. missile attack. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the report in the Sunday Times newspaper was without foundation. “This is an unprofessional kind of fabricating news,” Asefi told a weekly news conference. “Iran is a clear and transparent country, where such covert activities do not take place.” Quoting a senior insurgency commander in Iraq, the Sunday Times said Zarqawi had shrapnel lodged in his chest and may have been moved to Iran. It said his supporters might try to move the Jordanian-born militant to another country for an operation.
Zarqawi, accused of masterminding suicide bombings, ambushes and assassinations in Iraq, was wounded three weeks ago when a U.S. missile hit his convoy near the northwestern Iraqi city of al Qaim, the Sunday Times quoted the unnamed source as saying. Washington has offered a $25 million bounty for Zarqawi. The United States has accused Iran of harboring al Qaeda militants who escaped Afghanistan after U.S. troops invaded in late 2001 following the Sept. 11 attacks. Tehran acknowledges that al Qaeda members have managed to cross its long and hard-to-police borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it denies providing safe-haven to al Qaeda members and has extradited scores of suspected militants who have fled to Iran in the last four years.
Let me get this straight. A **British newspaper **publishes a story **“quoting a senior insurgency commander in Iraq” **as saying Zarqawi has fled to Iran and YOU ask: “what sort of **American logic **is this?”
Just in posting that question, I have to wonder what sort of Reza Pahlavian logic do YOU use?
Try reading the full context old man. My assertion is based on the overall American allegations over the last couple of years that Iran harbours/aids Al Qaida or Taliban. All desperate lies by desperate people.
^^ That is sort of the problem. In 1993 Hans Blix and the IAEA were ready to certify the Iraq had no WMD program. Saddams' son-in-law defected and spilled the whole program. Turns out there was a huge program. So once you have been burned by a giant lie, it is sort of hard to believe the next statement even if it is the truth.
Iran is a repressive totalitarian country. Repressive totalitarian countries lie. The question is, when are they really telling the truth. If we had a free press inside of Iran, we might know better. But we don't. So we go on the assumption that everything is a lie.
So Hans Blix was right and America the great big democracy told a great big lie. America the great democracy has killed a 100,000 people in Iraq, many of them Shia’s, and then tries to befool others with other big lies like Iran helping the likes of Zarqawi.
It’s quite simple logic. Butchers like Zarqawi (if this bogey man really exists that is?) kill Shia’s, so Iran will not lift a finger to help this kaffir. Comprende?
If your assertion is “based on the overall American allegations over the last couple of years,” then you shouldn’t have used this story to open your stupid little thread. This article has nothing to do with American logic or American beliefs as to the whereabouts of Zarqawi. It has to do with a British paper quoting an Iraqi insurgent.
Next time you’ll probably start a thread by posting an article about some animal dieing in the zoo and using it to talk about mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo.
Hans Blix was horribly wrong in 1993, thats why his credibility suffered, and he was not beleived. Saddam had fooled him before.
Zarqawi is a thorn in the side to the US, and Iran likes that. No doubt Zarqawi kills Shias, but a year ago we heard lots of crowing about Sunni-Shia cooperation in the insurgency. Iranian support was undoubtedly behind Muqtada, so Iran has shown that killing Iraqi Shia to throw mud at the US is a price it is willing to pay. As long as Iranian blood is safe, a chaotic Iraq serves a purpose.
You people say Zarqawi is an Al Qaida leader, and you people have previously claimed that Al Qaida has been given refuge by Iran. The article is perfectly in line with the twisted American logic, and lies even if it has got you rubbed up the wrong way.
Blix did not order the inavsion of Iraq based on outright lies - you liers did, and 100,000 thousand Iraqi’s were killed as a result of pursuing that great big American lie.
Muqtada Sadr is a Shia cleric, not an Al Qaida chief like Zarqawi. Get your facts right first.
Zarqawi kills Shia’s because of they are Shia, which is not the case for those Sunni’s he kills, because he deems them traitors for working for the American occupation regime. You guys are struggling to explain the logic of how a man you say kills Shia’s wantonly, because of his innate hatred for Shia Islam, can then be supported by the clerics of Iran.
HELLO!!! :knocking on head:] Anybody home in there?
The person quoted as saying Zarqawi was in Iran is a ** senior insurgency commander in Iraq **. Using Pahlavian and Smithian logic, of course, there is no Zarqawi because he is an invention of the US intelligence services. Therefore, the person confirming the existence of Zarqawi couldn't possibly be an insurgency commander. Ergo, if there was a person talking to the reporter, it was probably a US spook playing the role of insurgency commander. Then again, the newspaper is probably owned by Rupert Murdoch and there might not even have been a reporter speaking to anyone. The most likely explanation is that the US Defense Department simply told Murdoch to print this story in one of his British newspapers in order to further perpetuate the myth that there is a Zarqawi and, killing two birds with one stone, putting the heat on Iran for harboring him.
PURE GENIUS. It's no wonder the US is militarily and economically the most powerful nation on Earth.
Sadr is a thug, his people are thugs, Zarqawi is a thug, his people are thugs. The fact that Muqtada is a cleric is a crime against Islam.
And it is highly doubtful that 100,000 have been killed. On the other hand the track record of Saddam would be that HE would have killed another 100,000 by now. Saddam and his sons would have had control of Iraq for decades, killing Shia the entire time. On the other hand, we still have Saddam, perhaps you would like him back in contol? Would that be better for you?
Will Iran help Zarqawi? Probably not. Has Iran sheltered Al-Qaeda? Probably. Al-Qaeda is the only effective force fighting the US. Iran does not particularly like the Palestinians, but they send them shiploads of weapons, as the Palestinians are the only ones killing Jews. Conflicts make strange bedfellows.
muqtada al sadr (may ALLAH protect him) is not a thug but a well respected aalim and the fact that he killed a huge number of crusaders makes him even greater
and if zarqawi was real then I would say the same about him but why praise a ghost?
^
You believe that it's okay to kill women and children (Muslim at that, which I'm sure sadly makes a difference to you) in order to keep the Jihad going?
