Toby is clueless…

Toby ran the following picture with a quip about it being something he “expected” from Fox News:

Now why would they show those two pictures side by side? An evil conspiracy by the right wing zealots over at the Pro Bush Fox News Channel?

Here’s Zarqawi’s bio from Wikipedia:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (c. October 1966 – June 7, 2006) was the self-proclaimed leader of the Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaeda in Iraq [1]. One or more individuals identifying themselves as Zarqawi took responsibility, on several audiotapes, for numerous acts of terrorism in Iraq. These acts include suicide bombings and the murder of many soldiers, police officers, and civilians.

As an Islamist identified with the Salafi movement, Zarqawi opposed the presence of American and Western military forces in the Islamic world and opposed the West’s support for and existence of Israel. In September 2005, he reportedly declared “all-out war” on Shia Muslims in Iraq [2] and is believed responsible for dispatching numerous Al-Qaeda suicide bombers throughout Iraq, especially to areas with large concentrations of Shia civilians. As the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq he is suspected of causing thousands of people’s deaths – many, if not most of them, civilians.

Zarqawi, a longtime ally of Osama bin Laden, was a high-ranking member of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, and since October 2004 had referred to his own organization Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, or Monotheism and Holy War Group, a terrorist network operating in Iraq, as “Al-Qaeda in Iraq”. On October 21, 2004, Zarqawi officially announced his allegiance to Al Qaeda; on December 27, 2004, Al Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi “the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq” and asked “all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds.”[3]

Yep. Nothing in there ties them to that organization that blew up the towers… What was their name? I forget…

Give me a break dude. Zarqawi was a leader in Al-Qaeda. Maybe you’ve heard of ‘em?

If we rammed a missile up the ass of some Al-Qaeda scumbag in Jordan or Syria, would we not be allowed to tie the two together?

[tags]al qaeda, zarqawi[/tags]

This entry was posted in Strange. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.youareatree.com Scott

    Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until Zarqawi swore allegiance well after 9/11. In fact, there was zero Al Qaeda presence in Iraq until that move in 2004.

    Linking ANYthing Iraq related to 9/11 is wrong — nothing there ever had anything to do with the attacks before October 2004. Nothing.

    It’s a lie to link them.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Overly simplistic, a flaw you typically engage in when criticizing.

    There’s no “lie” here. Al Qaeda blew up the towers.

    Al Qaeda was behind Zarqawi.

    No one said Zarqawi blew up the towers.

    If we killed Osama bin Laden himself in Iraq, people like you would still be rushing to say we shouldn’t say he was killed in Iraq because Iraq didn’t bomb the World Trade Center.

    As if that’s the only requirement there will ever be for international action.

    Look. I’m not one of those rubes who think Saddam funded the 9/11 attacks, but let’s be honest. Not every mention of the two means someone is saying one is a result of the other.

    I know it’s evil Fox News, mouthpiece of the Bush administration and embodiment of all things kitten killing to you lefties, but get over it. Not everything you see has some deeper conspiratorial propagandic value.

    I mean, let’s face it. I didn’t see the original. Neither did you. If either of us did, would that have swayed us?

    And if you’re so dumb that it made you tie the two together, does it matter what you think anyway?

  • http://taylorville.sunk.org/ Mike

    “Not every mention of the two means someone is saying one is a result of the other.”

    Agreed, but clearly in some cases it was hoped people would draw that conclusion. That’s not conspiracy: that’s political strategy. And it happens across party lines.

    We sat here in Ohio and listened to Bush mention the 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath. I would agree it’s ridiculous for anyone to tie the two together, but there are a lot of Republicans (and Democrats) who did just that. Unfortunately, those people were not merely among the general public –they were among those on the Senate floor.

  • http://www.utaoote.com acukvmciha

    xhutsphomo xftwtyxjgo qwrjmdehwo

  • http://warez-vip.info/discount-phentermine/advertisersworld.com-discount-link-phentermine.html warez-vip

    According to textbased.com (not to be confused with textism) it seems that Iím a minimalist (but not in the linguistics sense

  • http://plavix.pillsn.com plavix

    thanks, i said, with reference to the boobies comment. say, how about some music?

  • http://atenolol.pillsn.com atenolol

    Phew, this makes me glad I didnít sit through Daleís Wedding

  • http://ibuprofen.pillsn.com ibuprofen

    CHARLENE WILL BE ON A BUSINESS TRIP THROUGH THE NEXT DAY, SHE WILL NOT BE ON VACATION THANKS

  • http://www.youareatree.com/ Scott

    Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until Zarqawi swore allegiance well after 9/11. In fact, there was zero Al Qaeda presence in Iraq until that move in 2004.

    Linking ANYthing Iraq related to 9/11 is wrong — nothing there ever had anything to do with the attacks before October 2004. Nothing.

    It’s a lie to link them.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Overly simplistic, a flaw you typically engage in when criticizing.

    There’s no “lie” here. Al Qaeda blew up the towers.

    Al Qaeda was behind Zarqawi.

    No one said Zarqawi blew up the towers.

    If we killed Osama bin Laden himself in Iraq, people like you would still be rushing to say we shouldn’t say he was killed in Iraq because Iraq didn’t bomb the World Trade Center.

    As if that’s the only requirement there will ever be for international action.

    Look. I’m not one of those rubes who think Saddam funded the 9/11 attacks, but let’s be honest. Not every mention of the two means someone is saying one is a result of the other.

    I know it’s evil Fox News, mouthpiece of the Bush administration and embodiment of all things kitten killing to you lefties, but get over it. Not everything you see has some deeper conspiratorial propagandic value.

    I mean, let’s face it. I didn’t see the original. Neither did you. If either of us did, would that have swayed us?

    And if you’re so dumb that it made you tie the two together, does it matter what you think anyway?

  • http://taylorville.sunk.org/ Mike

    “Not every mention of the two means someone is saying one is a result of the other.”

    Agreed, but clearly in some cases it was hoped people would draw that conclusion. That’s not conspiracy: that’s political strategy. And it happens across party lines.

    We sat here in Ohio and listened to Bush mention the 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath. I would agree it’s ridiculous for anyone to tie the two together, but there are a lot of Republicans (and Democrats) who did just that. Unfortunately, those people were not merely among the general public –they were among those on the Senate floor.

  • http://www.utaoote.com/ acukvmciha

    xhutsphomo xftwtyxjgo qwrjmdehwo

  • http://warez-vip.info/discount-phentermine/advertisersworld.com-discount-link-phentermine.html warez-vip

    According to textbased.com (not to be confused with textism) it seems that Iím a minimalist (but not in the linguistics sense

  • http://plavix.pillsn.com/ plavix

    thanks, i said, with reference to the boobies comment. say, how about some music?

  • http://atenolol.pillsn.com/ atenolol

    Phew, this makes me glad I didnít sit through Daleís Wedding

  • http://ibuprofen.pillsn.com/ ibuprofen

    CHARLENE WILL BE ON A BUSINESS TRIP THROUGH THE NEXT DAY, SHE WILL NOT BE ON VACATION THANKS