From Kurt Nimmo:

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=401

Eg back in 2005:
’Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Killed in Matador?
By James Joyner
AL-ZARQAWI SERIOUSLY INJURED, SAYS IRAQI OFFICIAL (AKI)

Operation Matador is centred around the town of Qaim, just a few kilometres from the Syrian border, and is aimed at destroying the strongholds of foreign fighters coming over the border into Iraq to join the insurgency. It’s the fourth day of violent fighting around the town, which has been surrounded by troops since Saturday night. Bombing is said to be heavy in Qaim, where there has been house
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/05/abu_musab_al-zarqawi_killed_in_matador/

It will be interesting to see if KB’s theory that the ‘insurgents’ are truly ‘freedom fighters’ and not just murderous thugs is borne out.

Well, that didn’t take long…

The condolence statements came from the al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sunnah — the group that posted the beheading video on a militant Web site — and the head of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of five insurgent groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq, that al-Zarqawi helped found last year.

He vowed: “As for you the slaves of the cross (coalition forces), the grandsons of Ibn al-Alqami (Shiites), and every infidel of the Sunnis, we can’t wait to sever your necks with our swords.”

KB, are you sure you don’t want to reconsider your ‘freedom fighter’ theory?

Tomaitoe / tamahtoe
Of course they are freedom fighters. They are fighting for the freedom to appoint a leader from their own ranks. The are fighting for the freedom to kill anyone that disagrees.

I think Zarqawi is more important than anybody is letting on. He represented the ruthless bloodlust and terror that the sunni supremists thought they could ride back into power. His death represents the killing of a dream. The dream that the shia would not, could not, effectively fight back in the face of terror. The dream that the shia would not become like the kurd. The dream that Iraqis would succumb to a dictator if he could end the terror. The dream is dead.

It will be interesting to see if KB’s theory that the ‘insurgents’ are truly ‘freedom fighters’ and not just murderous thugs is borne out. If we continued attacks on civilians, then he is wrong.

While Zarqawi and his band were no doubt behind many of the brutal attacks on civilians, I think that KB’s noble ‘freedom fighters’ are not far behind.

I checked your article and besides the author spending a lot of sincere energy in trying to devalue this fellow’s demise, I don’t find it convincing.

One thing that he did get right, was something that people on this blog cannot grasp. The main flow of the insurgency is as follows:

1. Baath get overthrown;
2. Baath mobilize sunnis in the fight to regain power because they reject democracy;
3. They slaughter, disrupt, and destroy;
4. After more than 2 years, the shia at long last begin to retaliate.

The claims that Bush is behind sectarianism in Iraq is nonsense. The obvious truth is simply that the minority arab sunni’s did not appreciate losing power and they will do absolutely ANYTHING to destroy the political process, bring Iraq to its knees, and scoop up the remains and put it back in their pockets.

I think the author also downplays the significance of Zarqawi. While the US certainly did want to split the sunni insurgency from Zarqawi, and emphasized the fact that he was a foreigner killing Iraqis indiscriminantly, that in no way changes the fact that he WAS doing those things. He claimed responsibility for some of the most high profile attacks, and he is the one that drove the UN out.

Killing him is a good thing.

The argument that ‘just because he is dead there will be more people to take his place’ is absurd. The more ‘effective’ enemy operators you kill, the less ‘effective’ the enemy becomes.

Charlie’s stonewall denial that Bush lied in regard to the reasons for the illegal invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that I’ve given him irrefutable evidence.

A point by point refutation is hardly ‘stonewalling.’

You were afraid to even read them. It would have taken you 5 minutes maximum.

I would venture that the person who reposts other people’s propaganda and is afraid to review evidence that proves his sources are wrong is the one who is ‘stonewalling.’

But that’s just me…

Almaliki said he would get zarqawi … and he did.
Almaliki said he would form a cabinet … and he did.
Maliki does not seem to be a man of empty words.

I hope for a thousand more victories in the years ahead.

But then again if you had the slightest bit of sense you would have realised it’s not a serious comment. It was made to highlight Charlie’s stonewall denial that Bush lied in regard to the reasons for the illegal invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that I’ve given him irrefutable evidence.
Seems to me if Charlie can ask for evidence to prove something that everyone knows is true anyway, there’s no reason I shouldn’t do the same.