Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be caught any time

India Daily ^

[jmc1969]

So will ol'Zarq pull an Osama and excape Iraq to go and hide in Syria or Iran. You know that we wouldn't invade either country to get him, we aren't even willing to invade to get Bin Laden.

[killjoy]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi can be caught any time.

LOL! When will we catch him? Real soon now!

[DTogo]

Before we catch him, it would be a good time to go back to the U.N. and make sure it's OK that we do so. Ya know, take the old "Global Test" and see if France or Germany can help... ;^)

[Baraonda]

**Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be caught any time**

Didn't they catch him a few days ago, or was that another one?

[SteveMcKing]

I think we are waiting for a first-nuclear strike from Iran or North Korea. We will absorb it, and then level half the world in response.

[killjoy]

Didn't they catch him a few days ago, or was that another one?

They caught him before they didn't catch him.

[Baraonda]

And who is al-Zarqawi?

Aren't we supposed to catch Osama bin-Laden?

Has our WoT failed completely?

We should go first for the big guys, not second and third ranked terrorists.

[Wiz]

It's India Daily. Can we trust the source that claims UFO popping out of Himalaya mountains?

[Liberty Valance]

LOL!

[Baraonda]

**They caught him before they didn't catch him.**

That don't make no sense.

Either they caught someone or they didn't, unless they caught him before and then he escaped. Is that what you mean?

[Nachoman]

We will just miss Zarqawi by mere minutes, but snag one of his top lieutenants.

[ChefKeith]

yawn, wake me when we HAVE him.

[The Fork]

Look at the misspelled words and incorrect grammer. I call shenanigans on this "article". Aids? you mean aides. This is so much BS.

[Atchafalaya]

They need to put the word out on the street that at noon May 15th Ghassan al-Rawi will be on the court house steps, available to answer any and all questions from those that have lost loved ones in recent bombings. Ghassan, at this point, states he knows nothing.
What say ya'll?

[coconutt2000]

You know that we wouldn't invade either country to get him, we aren't even willing to invade to get Bin Laden.

The War on Terror is bigger than just Al Zarqawi or Bin Laden. They are important, but the victory is in the reformation of the Middle East to no longer give such men safe haven to plan, grow, and operate against us.

Yes, we need to catch Bin Laden. There's the matter of a pound of flesh that he owes us, that he needs to be brought to justice for. Al Zarqawi has a lot to answer for too, but he needs to answer most to the Iraqi people, of whom his followers have killed in large numbers.

Bin Laden will answer for his crimes, but if we go haring after him and ignore the greater war on what Osama has built, then we fail in the long run to secure the peace, and liberate Muslims from the grip of terror that has oppressed them to the point where extremism runs rampant in their communities.

[mbennett203]

"I think we are waiting for a first-nuclear strike from Iran or North Korea. We will absorb it, and then level half the world in response."

It sounds wierd to say this, but I hope the scenario is with one working nuke, that they fire, and miss. It'd be the kind of funny on par with someone blustering into a gunfight and squeezing on a squib round for the first.

At least until we obliterate them. Then the laughter stops.

[mbennett203]

"And who is al-Zarqawi? "

Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, IIRC. He's a pretty big fish.

[Atchafalaya]

I figure 1/16-1/8; the repercussions will tout like 3/4 and make us say "shit we should have done 1/2."

[Baraonda]

**Look at the misspelled words and incorrect grammer. I call shenanigans on this "article".**

Don't expect perfect grammar from a tabloid newspaper.