Or, alternatively, none. ‘jet’ could call himself the leader of the American branch of the Judean People’s Front, but that wouldn’t imply any support. Jason Burke wrote about the shift from loose franchising to ideological branding a couple of years ago, and al-Z appears to have been the best example. He was a low-rate crook turned copycat jihadist in Afghanistan, and was a low-rate copycat jihadist in Iraqi Kurdistan whose low-rate operation was boosted more than somewhat by the abrupt removal of Iraq’s government.

Well, they had ample opportunity to deal with him when he was hanging out in the area they controlled. Or, y’know, call in an airstrike on him from their US buddies, who were very good at bombing stuff in northern Iraq.

Oh.

Actually, by that metric, weren’t the Kurds as culpable as the Taliban for allowing terrorist camps on their territory?

The moral objection to trophy photos of the latter is quite well expressed by Deuteronomy 21:23, I think. (Underlining the point, Rashi explains: “This is comparable to twin brothers. One became king, while the other was arrested for robbery and hanged. Whoever saw him would say, “the king is hanging!”)

The same people who are fighting international terrorism and insurgencies now, were fighting international terrorism and insurgencies in Central America little more than twenty years ago.

In the process they trained, financed and armed various groups; Salvadorian army, for example. Those freedom-fighting groups happened to hack many more heads than your friend al-Zarqawi. Here’s how William Blum describes one incident:

On 28 January 1982, President Reagan certified to Congress that the El Salvador government was “making a concerted and significant effort to comply with internationally recognized human rights” and that it was “achieving substantial control over all elements of its own armed forces, so as to bring to an end the indiscriminate torture and murder of Salvadorean citizens by these forces.” The language was that imposed by Congress upon the administration if the flow of arms and American military personnel was to continue.

Two days earlier, the American and foreign press had carried the story of how government troops had engaged in a massacre of the people of the village of El Mozote in December. From 700 to 1,000 persons were reported killed, mostly the elderly, women and children. When a very long, detailed account of this incident appeared eventually, in 1993, it became more apparent than ever that this was one of the most repulsive and cruelest massacres of the 20th century carried out by ground troops face-to-face with their victims—people hacked to death by machetes, many beheaded, a child thrown in the air and caught on a bayonet, an orgy of rapes of very young girls before they were killed … “If we don’t kill them [the children] now, they’ll just grow up to be guerrillas,” barked an army officer to a reluctant soldier…

Are you aware that while Zarqawi named his group Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, that he is not considered to have had much actual connection to Al Qaeda?

“Yeah, the Kurds puffed up his rep by allowing Zarqawi to assasinate and blow up lots of them.”

Another non sequitur. What is it with you?

The Kurds pushed the idea of Zarqawi-Al Qaeda links (gee, maybe because he was blowing them up), and the U.S. ate them up as a way to link Saddam to Al Qaeda.

Now, can you address this directly, rather than falling back on dismissive sarcasm (which seems to be wingnut default mode these days)?

“Your theory that it was American propoganda that allowed Zarqawi to become the successful center of gravity for the insurgency is laughable”.

Well, it may be laughable, but it’s not my theory, and it’s much more than I wrote. You’re just making shit up, now. Ann Coulter territory.

Yeah, the Kurds puffed up his rep by allowing Zarqawi to assasinate and blow up lots of them.

Your theory that it was American propoganda that allowed Zarqawi to become the successful center of gravity for the insurgency is laughable. It might have more to do with his being the head Al Qaeda honcho in Iraq, with all the support that implies, and his successful ability to pull off high profile attacks in several different countries, inspiring many more to his cause. Yeah, it must have been Fox news and the US.gov because Al Qaeda doesn’t have any proven ability to get their message out.

Here’s a cluebat from someone obviously more knowledgable than you, abb1 and your MotherJones wannabees.

Thanks for reminding me that it was Kurds who probably started the puffing-up of Zarqawi’s rep.

That’s what I’m complaining about – the loss of a valuable asset. Millions of taxpayers’ dollars went to build this very necessary persona, and now it’s all wasted and I fear – for purely polictical purposes, as it always is with this administration. They are more political than patriotic. You just can’t trust these people in matters as important as The War On Terror.

Perhaps you could give Al Qaeda’s propoganda efforts the same treatment? Or is it not proper for noble god loving westerns to counter propoganda? Too good for us? Not a tool worthy of western ideals?