Zarqawi aide calls for attacks on Vatican, White House

[ECH1969]

DUBAI — The deputy to Al Qaeda’s frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, has asked for orders to attack the White House and the Vatican, according to an audiotape posted on the Internet yesterday.

“To our emir (leader) Abu Musab Al Zarqawi ... we say: We are ready for your orders. We are determined to fight the infidels,” said Sheikh Abdulrahman Al Iraqi in the tape, whose authenticity could not be verified.

“If you point at the White House or the Vatican, we would make every effort so that you reach your target,” he added, in the online statement broadcast a day after a call by Zarqawi to his followers to intensify their fight against the Americans in Iraq.

This is the first time that Al Qaeda, the terror group led by Osama bin Laden, mentions the Vatican as a possible target.

http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=14753
-------------------------------------------------------------

How long will it take before the Vatican comes out officially in support of the American presense in Iraq? It seems like all sides want an all out "Holy War" we will just have to wait to see who starts it.

[creeksneakers2]

1. Contrast that with this well timed propaganda

Dana Priest reports the terrorist threat to the US is declining, just days after stories about the number of terrorist threats worldwide increasing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000704.html

[ECH1969]

2. More terror = more fear = more war

And, who benifits

[BeHereNow]

3. Gotta justify the draft somehow!

We will probably see another PNAC led "New Pearl Harbor"
any day now.
The last one really helped drum up some new recruits and
the numbers are down, and since the neocons have SO
many countries left to pillage, they have to come up with
some more cannon fodder.
BHN

[NNN0LHI]

4. The Vatican officially supported the American presence in Iraq last year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wirq10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/10/ixportal.html

Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq

By Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston in Rome
(Filed: 10/10/2004)

Senior Vatican officials have decided to put aside their differences with Tony Blair over the war in Iraq, calling for multinational troop reinforcements to secure the country's fledgling democracy.

In February last year, both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, offered some of the fiercest denunciations of Mr Blair and President George W Bush for their strike on Saddam Hussein.

Their private criticism of Mr Blair was made embarrassingly public by Vatican officials, who revealed at a press conference that the Pope had urged him to "make use of all the resources offered by international law to avoid the tragedy of war".

Now, in light of the post-war chaos, Cardinal Sodano has announced a newly hawkish line on Iraq from Rome. "The child has been born," he declared recently on behalf of the Vatican. "It may be illegitimate, but it's here, and it must be reared and educated."

more

[bpilgrim]

24. "The child has been born...it must be reared and educated."

Birth of a Nation

what a gross, racist, arrogant way to put the horror that is now Iraq.

but anyways, what shall we do with the rapist who seeded this 'child' if it's up to the Vatican they'll probably get a promotion.

peace

[BadNews]

5. Vatican Attack = OK for an Overt Holy War

An attack on the Vatican would be a foolish move by Muslim fundies. It would unite North America, South America, Europe, Russia, and parts of Africa in a large scale crack down on the middle east and would lead to overt oppression of Muslims within those nations. Even India, and parts of the orient may enter the fray. This would be a bad move on their part, and there would be a further slaughter of people on all sides of the conflict.

If you believe * is hell bent on drumming up support for a war, that would be the place to do it. Leave a few bread crumb trails to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and you have justification for a new and improved crusade.

[Zhade]

8. What worries me is that I don't see Ratzinger being opposed to the idea.

(No, that's not 'nativist hate speech', so you idiots who emit that shrill, laughable cry of 'persecution' can put down your flamethrowers. I'm talking about ONE MAN, NOT ALL CATHOLICS.)

[alcuno]

14. The Holy Father, then a Cardinal, publically condemned the war in Iraq.

pre and post invasion.

[Zhade]

15. Yeah, and he helped cover up child rape and called people like me evil.

Please forgive me for not thinking highly of him. I'm sure he could care less what I think.

[alcuno]

21. Don't get snippy, I just pointed out your mistake.

And I didn't hear anyone asking you to think highly of him. Pointing out the Church's horrible conduct or attitude toward people like you is certainly fair.

However, it's not fair to throw it out just because you made an erroneous conclusion.

[Zhade]

23. You'd have to show me a mistake first.

Saying it wouldn't surprise me to see Ratzinger approve this is not a 'mistake'. It's speculation. It may even be unfair, unlikely speculation, but it's not a 'mistake'.

As far as being snippy, I wasn't aware my bringing forth facts about Ratzinger was considered snippy now.

[alcuno]

26. Here's something to start with.

Look for Ratzinger near the bottom. BTW - when you make things up that have no basis in fact, it's a mistake.

http://cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

[Zhade]

27. Again - you'd have to show me where I made something up.

Don't bother looking, you won't find it, because I never did what you're suggesting.

I made a remark that it wouldn't surprise me if Ratzinger approved of a new holy war. Guess what? It wouldn't. I didn't 'make up' the lack of surprise I would feel if I learned he supported the idea of a new Crusade.

Notice that I never once said he WOULD support one, and never once even hinted at what actions he might take in support of one. I made nothing up and attributed no actions to him that were not accurate - his cover-up of child rape, his calling people like me evil. Those are the ONLY actions of Ratzinger's I even mentioned.

You may not like that it would not surprise me if Ratzinger liked the idea of a new Crusade. That's not my problem to deal with. At the same time, it's quite wrong of you to accuse me of making things up when I am clearly not doing so.

I never once said Ratzinger did not condemn the war, so why you keep linking me to a piece about that is beyond me. It appears you're formulating a strawman argument, and I will state for the record that I never said he did not condemn the war, so you can stop trying to make an issue out of something I never said.

[alcuno]

30. "keep linking?"

I did it once. Again, your assumption about the Holy Father is not based on fact. It's actually contrary to the facts.

[Zhade]

31. It wasn't an assumption.

Keep trying. It was speculation, not an assumption. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me is not the same as saying it would definitely happen.

I don't like Ratzinger, I don't believe he is respectful of other faiths, and it wouldn't surprise me if he loves the idea of a new Crusade. This is not the same as saying he is for a new Crusade.

Once again: haven't made anything up, haven't misrepresented the man, haven't assumed anything about him - just expressed my belief that he is the type of man who might not be opposed to a new Crusade. Maybe that's offensive to you - I have no idea if you're Catholic or not - and if it is, tough. Ratzinger offends me. His bigotry toward homosexuals offends me. His covering up of the rape of children offends me.

[NNN0LHI]

20. He said the war was OK last year in October. See post # 4 n/t

[alcuno]

22. You know, I just don't see that as support of the war.

I mean, if that's the standard, then Chairman Dean would be guilty of the same thing. I just don't consider him a "supporter" of the war. Besides, the Vatican has made public statements calling the invasion pointless and a mistake.

[NNN0LHI]

33. Chairman Dean is guilty of the same thing as far as I am concerned

To not denounce an injustice is to me the same a promoting an injustice. You have every right to look at this situation anyway you wish to. But so do I. So concerning this situation I respect your opinion even though I disagree with you. I only hope you respect mine as well.

Don

[Frederik]

6. "the tape, whose authenticity could not be verified"

No shit

:rofl:

[Skip Intro]

7. could they be any more obvious

Wonder how many will march out for duct tape this time?

[Richard Steele]

28. I'm just surprised they didn't work Tom DeLay into it this time!

[valis]

9. Vatican should be a soft target...

If they wanted to do something they had a big opportunity during the Pope chaos...

[clem_c_rock]

10. Oh fucking give me a break - HE DOESN'T EXIST PEOPLE!

What the fuck - this shit is so bad I really think the Pentagon is hiring writers from the WWF.

The worst part is many DU'ers buy this shit and will discuss it as if it's the truth.

One legged, most likely dead, super-terrorist - THAT's A GREAT ONE.

I think it's about time for another fake Osama vid too.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Gyre]

11. I'd give your hypothesis

a 75% chance of being correct. The timing of when they dust him, or Osama off, seems to strongly correlate to when chimpy's finding it hard slogging in the court of public opinion.

Gyre

[clem_c_rock]

17. Some sources for my doubts beyond the common sense

of it all that one person could not do all this.

I mean come on, one minute he's a one legged man in Iraq then he's behind the foiled plot in Jordan's "Al Quada foiled chemical attack plot", then the next minute he's supposedly behind the Madrid train bombing. The next minute he shows up in one of those beheading videos (you know - the one's w/ hardly any blood, and no sign of struggle when the head's being sawed off ) w/ no sign of a missing leg.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4466324
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/

Very good points here:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/112004Chin/112004chin.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ15Ak02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK13Ak04.html

and why is he not on this list:
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

[ECH1969]

18. The better attack would be that Bush has failed

to catch Zarqawi just like he has failed to catch Bin Laden. And, that Bush could have taken out Zarqawi before the war, but chose not to in order to try to justify the war.

Trying to say Zarqawi or Osama doesn't exist really won't fly with the US public.

[Frederik]

34. They exist

but their powers and capabilities have been, shall we say, exaggerated a bit.

Zarqawi is a nobody. Taking him out before the war would not have been neccesary. But I see your point, as long as Bush & Co are making such a big deal out of Zarqawi, why not make a point out of the fact that he isn't capable of catching him.

[lyonn]

13. One must not forget we did not bomb

that terrorist's camp when we invaded Iraq. He was the only known terrorist in Iraq at that time according to news stories. Media keeps skipping right over those allegations. Now he is considered our biggest threat. This admin. makes up stories like a 5 yr. old.

[warrior1]

12. Surprised that didn't

release this right after his press talk, thingy.

[lovuian]

16. This would go with the prophecies of St. Malachy!!!

I'm not surprised the vatican has brought this on itself being a supporter of Bush regime!!!

[wishlist]

19. Yes- I was just thinking that prophecies involve Muslim attacks on Vatican

I was just thinking that I had never heard about any threats against the Vatican by Muslims as far as I could recall, which is a big part of the prophecies. Interesting since if Zarqawi is a manufactured fictional boogyman character it would make sense that a threat against the Vatican would be attributed to him to fit with the end of the world/revelations prophecies so popular with so many people. Interesting

[lovuian]

25. I don't think the prophecies says WHO destroys the Vatican

the main thing is that its predicted some how the Vatican is destroyed and Pope Benedict XVI could well be the last pope

If you wanted to get all the Christians in the world scared and ticked off and eliminate a major peace organization

this is the way to do it!!!

So I don't know Who but it would definitely stir up Hate!!!

[Shell Beau]

29. Why would a terrorist state where he was planning an attack?

Especially places like White House and Vatican. Maybe to laugh in our faces as we beef up more security. It doesn't make sense.

[lovuian]

32. Your right it doesn't!!! Zaquari is the (BoogeyMan)

always pulled out when ever a terrorist attack happens and never caught just like Osama!!!

But WHO do they REALLY WORK FOR???

[ECH1969]

35. And, the retraction

IRAQ: AL-ZARQAWI GROUP DENIES THREATENED VATICAN AND US

Baghdad, 2 May (AKI) - The group headed by al-Qaeda's number one in Iraq, the Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi denied on Monday that the organisation has ever threatened to attack the Vatican. "The Crusader press has said that al-Qaeda has threatened the Vatican and Washington. But we swear by Allah that the best way to beat unbelievers and tyrants is to place His word above every other thing," al-Zarqawi said in a message posted to an Islamist website forum. "This is what our leader has said to al-Zarqawi and we will stand by him, even if were were asked to immerge ourselves in water and to go Washington or Rome," the message continued. It is being construed as a denial of a message that appeared on the same website forum on Saturday. This was attributed to Abdel Rahman al-Iraqi, al-Zarqawi's second in command, who proclaimed his loyalty to al-Zarqawi in the message, even if this meant "following you to the White House and to the Vatican City".

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.160970646&par=0