Al-Zarqawi betrayed

[jolinar of malkshor]

I wonder how true this claim is.

I wouldn't be suprised that this is actually what happened. Bin Laden doing what ever to stay alive.

http://torontosun.com/News/World/200...67084-sun.html

[Daradon]

Why would the U.S. lay up their search for Bin Laden? And why would top Al Qaeda leaders believe that anyway?

It's possible Zarqawi was betrayed, stuff like that happens all the time, but I doubt it was for this reason.

It's also possible the search for Bin Laden was let up a long time ago, he's certainly useful to the current U.S. government. Sure there would be a jump in populatrity in the immediate aftermath if he was captured or killed, but in the long run I doubt much would change. Of course that statement's a little more inflamatory.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Why would the U.S. lay up their search for Bin Laden? And why would top Al Qaeda leaders believe that anyway?

It's possible Zarqawi was betrayed, stuff like that happens all the time, but I doubt it was for this reason.

It's also possible the search for Bin Laden was let up a long time ago, he's certainly useful to the current U.S. government. Sure there would be a jump in populatrity in the immediate aftermath if he was captured or killed, but in the long run I doubt much would change. Of course that statement's a little more inflamatory.

All the more reason to make that kind of deal. The US has scaled back on its afgan missions already. Just another excuse to get out of there.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

All the more reason to make that kind of deal. The US has scaled back on its afgan missions already. Just another excuse to get out of there.

Hmmm if that were true then, wouldn't that be the conspiracy thorists wet dream? Letting the noose slip on Bin Laden to help keep Iraq under control would show that a stable Iraq is more important than a stable Afghanistan to the U.S. government. Why would that be? It would also kind of 'prove' that the Afghan war was just a precursor to the Iraq war, if they let go the head of the September 11th 2001 attacks to increase their odds of success in oil rich Iraq.

One could even go from there to suggest that if THAT was true then the U.S. NEEDED a reason to attack Afghanistan and they had already worked with Bin Ladn in the past and yadda yadda yadda that whole can of worms is open.

I don't really believe any of this, but if you believe a deal like that, you could work your way backwards like that.

I just don't believe the rumour for the simple assumption that I would find it hard for those two sides to believe the other one would keep up the bargain. I doubt either would agree to the deal.

Zarqawi definitely could have been betrayed, but I doubt it would be for a deal like that, just doesn't make sense for either side.

[jolinar of malkshor]

And we will probably never know.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Why would the U.S. lay up their search for Bin Laden? And why would top Al Qaeda leaders believe that anyway?

It's possible Zarqawi was betrayed, stuff like that happens all the time, but I doubt it was for this reason.

It's also possible the search for Bin Laden was let up a long time ago, he's certainly useful to the current U.S. government. Sure there would be a jump in populatrity in the immediate aftermath if he was captured or killed, but in the long run I doubt much would change. Of course that statement's a little more inflamatory.

Absolutely wrong. Bin Ladin dead is worth a hell of a lot more than Bin Ladin alive. You kill Bin Ladin, show his corpse on CNN, and the US is officially winning the war on terror. The boogeyman is dead and the Lone Ranger killed him.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely wrong. Bin Ladin dead is worth a hell of a lot more than Bin Ladin alive. You kill Bin Ladin, show his corpse on CNN, and the US is officially winning the war on terror. The boogeyman is dead and the Lone Ranger killed him.

Like I said, yes in the immediate aftermath.

But then the attacks will continue, someone else will head the organization, and the public will realize it's a little more complicated than that.

I don't know how much he could be commandering the organization on the run in the mountains anyway. And the cells are all over the world, run by whomever.

A live Bin Laden keeps the prospect of the boogyman alive.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Like I said, yes in the immediate aftermath.

But then the attacks will continue, someone else will head the organization, and the public will realize it's a little more complicated than that.

I don't know how much he could be commandering the organization on the run in the mountains anyway. And the cells are all over the world, run by whomever.

A live Bin Laden keeps the prospect of the boogyman alive.

Well his death will count for something, if not moral support to the people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

People like him are never more better alive then dead.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well his death will count for something, if not moral support to the people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

People like him are never more better alive then dead.

Violent, undemocratic proxies have been used by liberal-democratic nations to further their own causes. Its not beyond the realm of imagination to believe that 'bad people' could be put to 'good uses'. There's always the old argument that when you bust one criminal, another takes their place. If you don't bust the crminal, you can monitor them, control them, and find out who their accomplices are.

That said, I can't imagine the US doing anything other than killing him if they found him.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Violent, undemocratic proxies have been used by liberal-democratic nations to further their own causes. Its not beyond the realm of imagination to believe that 'bad people' could be put to 'good uses'. There's always the old argument that when you bust one criminal, another takes their place. If you don't bust the crminal, you can monitor them, control them, and find out who their accomplices are.

That said, I can't imagine the US doing anything other than killing him if they found him.

I get your point, and what you're saying is probably in effect right now.

That being said, Bin Laden deserves nothing short of death for what he did on 9/11.

[Jayems]

Think about it.

You're working in Iraq as a militant. You are climbing the ranks... the americans are powerful, blowing stuff up around you all the time... and your boss... happens to be the most wanted man in your country... You know where he's hiding and there are 25,000,000 reasons for you to tell the yankes where he's at.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

^^

That's probably a far more plausible explanation for his betrayal than the theory that he was on the outs with Al-Qaeda's leadership. Not that I doubt it: if you read anything about Zarqawi, you'll learn that NOBODY liked this guy. His affiliation with Al-Qaeda was a marriage of convenience--he was an evil, violent thug for years, involved in all kinds of organized criminal activity and terrorism before he met Bin Laden.

Apparently when he and Bin Laden met they instantly disliked each other--so that may be why his wife believes that "Bin Laden betrayed my husband." But think about it: for that to be true, bin Laden and the U.S. would have to be in communication with one another through back channels--and if that were the case, bin Laden would already be dead. A big fish can't use a minnow to bargain for his own safety.

I believe Zarqawi was betrayed--in fact, IIRC that was in the news stories about the incident. But I believe he was betrayed by someone much closer to him, and that person wanted the bounty on his head.