Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Discussion

Zarqawi, like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a mysterious figure whom it can be difficult separating myth from reality (both DAESH propaganda and coalition). Unlike Baghdadi, more is known of Zarqawi now. For example, critics claim Colin Powell's UN speech elevated a relative nobody to somebody. But re-reading Powell's speech, line-by-line, word-for-word, it is difficult to discern any deliberate effort at deception. True, there were certain grey areas at the time, however even the holdover's in the Clinton FBI believed a link between the Iraqi regime and the First World Trade Center bombing since the perpetraters traveled on Iraqi passports. It's time for a dispassionate review of Zarqawi's life, less the anti-neocon rancor, less the Bush administration hype & bungling, and less bin Laden's own fuckups in dealing with Zarqawi.

By the time Bin Laden granted Zarqawi the al-Qaeda in Iraq franchise, bin Laden's own star was eclipsing as an effective leader of the global jihad since the Bush administration had driven him in to hiding. And bin Laden compromised his own theories and beliefs in a marriage with the devil, since Zarqawi was the only one in a leadership role willing to fight the United States, although this coward would not fight the United States directly. He murdered innocent people who's only crime was co-operating with coalition authorities and the Baghdad government. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 23:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it

This reads like a Wikipedia article and feels so out of place on RationalWiki. More than any other article I've seen yet.

Why is RationalWiki taking a position in support of Shia vs. Sunni?

That's ... strange. I understand why (disagreements aside) RationalWiki might promote feminism, but to quote Bill Maher, choosing sides in this kind of conflict is like choosing sides on Game of Thrones.

I'm specifically referring to the way in which Sunni Muslims are portrayed in this article as somehow more devious than Shia. The whole of this article just gives off the wrong kind of vibe for this kind of Wiki. Parogar (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that is Zarqawi & ISIS are strongly anti-Shia; that may be Zarqawi's strongest lasting legacy, shifting the Sunni Salafi-jihad priority to anti-Shi'ism and away from the Western infidel alliance. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, look, far be it from me to stop you in your glorious fight to destroy the infidel, I just don't see it as justification to blanket-cast all of Sunni Islam under the same light. And I was really referring to the line where you wrote that this is "nothing new among the sunnis." That kind of inflammatory language is exactly the thing that rational-minded people ought NOT to say. If you don't re-add that, I don't have a problem, I guess. I just felt that that's a bit of a ridiculous thing to write, you know?

Ok, I got it. The cite just added, Zarqawi's Anti-Shiism: Original or Borrowed explains much very well. Look at the conclusion, for example, Implications for Counter-Terrorism, where the author castigates the Saudi religious establishment for circulating for decades anti-Iranian and anti-Shi'a propaganda to promote itself and its brand of Wahhabism because now its born fruit among a generation who hate both the Saudi establishment and the Shi'a. Much of the rest of the article cites some older and some more recent anti-Shi'a ravings about a Zionist-Shi'a conspiracy. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 03:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What I don't get is why you make shit up about the article, then start a debate about it, then cram your anti-feminism thing into it. You see a briefly mentioning a sectarian conflict with a long history as "taking sides" which is, to be blunt about it, fucking stupid. Ikanreed (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Most Sunni Muslims are good people

I'm not a Muslim, but I've had Muslim friends from both sides of the fence, and the overwhelming majority of them are not scheming or trying to destroy the Shia, I promise you.

Agreed. One reason I took up this project is I have a close, African-American friend raised Muslim since childhood. I see him daily and he brings me news downloads on the war. He is very sympathetic to ISIS and believes the black flag will fly over the White House someday. We eat dinner together often enough and he teaches me doctrine from The Recitation. Yet I don't think he realizes sometime some, much of his news sources are actually Saudi fronts giving the Saudi twist on things, rather than the jihadi view he seeks. I'm better at finding the genuine jihadi internet sources than he is. Only my interest is more historical, his more current news. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Operation Provide Comfort

It appears the 1991 U.S. led Operation Provide Comfort had the effect of providing comfort for a group (Ansar al-Islam) which was later to merge with Zarqawi's group and become the Islamic State. For example, when the claim is made, "Sadam killed his own people" in the city of Halabja, it was Salafi-jihadis (although they were not known by that name at the time) that Saddam was fighting. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 21:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)