Did Zarqawi have one leg?

Did they ever say if that was one of the identifying trademarks.

I remember the news putting such emphasis on that point (his hospital visit, ect..) that I was wondering if it was true.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

so I guess there weren't any to count. If true.

Saddam was in power was to get his prothesis.

and the hospitality of Uday and Qusay. The republicans like to spout off how they allowed terrorists medical treatment.


Even if he was "blown up" couldn't they tell if he had a prosthesis and wouldn't they have brought that up?

bother you, your not a good BushAmerican. Get with the message!

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Lived a Brief, Shadowy Life Replete With Contradictions

<snip>
United States officials said he was wounded in a missile strike when American forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

He then went to a loosely controlled part of northern Iraq, and before the Iraq war, American leaders, including then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, asserted that he was sheltered by Mr. Hussein and therefore was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. American officials later admitted this was wrong, along with other details of Mr. Zarqawi's life, including the original claim that he was Palestinian (he was a member of an old Jordanian tribe) and that he had lost a leg.
<snip>

http://nytimes.com/2006/06/09/world/middleeast/09zarqawi.html

I know it's not a big subject, but I remember the news feeding us part of the "legend of Zarqawi" having one leg (but then wait....he wouldn't have been able to to be the man behind Nick Berg because of the strength it would take...and wait he's left handed).

I just wonder if Zarqawi made himself into this huge figure to take credit for everything or if we made Zarqawi the big bad wolf to take blame for everything.

but I thought that the Times was more reliable than most and they came up with a good explanation for the misinformation.:shrug:

As for your question, I think it may be a little bit of both. No doubt al-Zarqawi was a killer and a terrorist, but the White House and the MSM is playing up this one death as if it solves everything. It doesn't and will certainly lead to more violence and retribution and another will undoubtedly take his place.:-(

I once heard that al-Zarqwai didn't really exist, that he was a composite of numerous figures, rolled into one to turn into a bogeyman and pin all the blame on. I can't say if this was true, but in this chaos and in the face of countless lies and spin, we may never learn the truth about anything here.:-(

That he looked different in photos.

I agree with you. Zarqwai was a killer...... but one out 10's of thousand's. Also, if he were so important why didn't we try and save him to get information out of him?

We have made such a mess of things that Zarqwai part II will be here in no time.... and if we catch him Zarqwai part III and so on. We have giving him such status that naturally he will have a predecessor.

but those of us who have seen the news in the past couple of days are unlikely to forget what he looks like now.x(

And I asked the same question on another thread. Why didn't we capture him so we could find out all he knew? He might have been uncooperative, but they were able to obtain quite a bit from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Of course, the CIA kidnapped and held his children, to get him to talk. What I was told was that the trial of such a high profile person is more trouble than it's worth, like with Saddam and Zacharias Moussouti, costing a fortune and pointless, since everyone knows he's guilty, anyway...:shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1381179&mesg_id=1382157

And there is already a replacement for Zarqwai, and I agree, there will always be a next one, no matter how many are killed. There will never be a shortage of people to take the place of anyone who's assassinated, since hatred has become so intense against the American occupation that even ordinary Iraqis, and fellow Muslims, who have no dog in this fight, are signing up.:-(

And our discussion reminded me of an old Mark Fiore animation. What happened yesterday was exactly what happened in this scenario. But the date that this was posted was 11/12/02!

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/catchem.html

reported death........

Baghdad, this confirmed the connection between al-Zarqawi and Saddam, furthering the al-Qaeda-Saddam connection. And even after the story about the leg was proved to be false, the rumor lived on, as did the al-Qaeda-Saddam rumor, though bin Laden called Saddam "an infidel," because he ran a secular government.:eyes:

Reuters: ANALYSIS-Zarqawi more powerful as a myth than as a man

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=MAR821589

(last paragraph)
He was long said to have an artificial leg, fitted in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein's rule -- a claim some U.S. officials used to bolster their case that the Iraqi president was conspiring with al Qaeda. The tale about the leg -- like so many of the myths around Zarqawi -- turned out to be false.

It's a great leg. As soon as I heard about Zarqawi's one leg, I thought "that's exactly the leg a terrorist needs". I've nothing against Zarqawi's one leg. The trouble is, neither has he.

With apologies to the great Peter Cook.

One Leg Too Few
Peter Cook
The scene is a theatrical producer's office


Peter:Miss Rigby! Stella, my love! Would you please send in the next auditioner, please. Mr. Spigott, I believe it is.
Enter Dudley, hopping energetically on one leg

Peter:Mr. Spigott, I believe?
Dudley:Yes — Spigott by name, Spigott by nature. (keeps hopping)
Peter:Yes... if you'd like to remain motionless for a moment, Mr. Spigott. Please be stood. Now, Mr. Spigott you are, I believe, auditioning for the part of Tarzan?
Dudley:Right.
Peter:Now, Mr. Spigott, I couldn't help noticing almost at once that you are a one-legged person.
Dudley:You noticed that?
Peter:I noticed that, Mr. Spigott. When you have been in the business as long as I have you come to notice these things almost instinctively. Now, Mr. Spigott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan — a role which, traditionally, involves the use of a two-legged actor.
Dudley:Correct.
Peter:And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role.
Dudley:Right.
Peter:A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.
Dudley:Very true.
Peter:Well, Mr. Spigott, need I point out to you where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?
Dudley:Yes, I think you ought to.
Peter:Need I say with overmuch emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.
Dudley:The leg division?
Peter:Yes, the leg division, Mr. Spigott. You are deficient in it — to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That's what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.
Dudley:You mean it's inadequate?
Peter:Yes, it's inadequate, Mr. Spigott. And, to my mind, the British public is not ready for the sight of a one-legged ape-man swinging through the jungly tendrils.
Dudley:I see.
Peter:However, don't despair. After all, you score over a man with no legs at all. Should a legless man come in here demanding the role, I should have no hesitation in saying ‘Get out. Run away’.
Dudley:So there's still a chance?
Peter:There is still a very good chance. If we get no two-legged actors in here within the next two months, there is still a very good chance that you'll land this vital role. Failing two-legged actors, you, a unidexter, are just the sort of person we shall be attempting to contact telephonically.
Dudley:Well... thank you very much.
Peter:So my advice is, to hop on a bus, go home, and sit by your telephone in the hope that we will be getting in touch with you.
He shows Dudley out

Peter:I'm sorry I can't be more definite, but as you realise, it's really a two-legged man we're after. Good morning Mr. Spigott.

that the military spokesman was conducting was how the officer was using his pointer on the huge photo of only Zarqawi's face. What was he using it for, and what was he saying? "This is Zarqawi's nose, These two things up here are his eyes", All this hair around this area down here is his beard".

for a 500 Ib bomb being dropped on him

There didn't seem to be any dust and dirt in his hair or on his face.

Flopped off the stretcher and tried to take off? That'd be kind difficult with one leg....

But in our revisionist age, the article I thought I saw it in seems to have changed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900473.html?nav=hcmodule

It does mention that U.S. soldiers apparently kicked Zarqawis ass shortly before he died, in an attempt to extract his name. Another example of how brutality tends to supress information rather than release it, I guess.

Who knows what he would have told had he been treated. Then again, maybe that's why he had to die.

Did the guy they kill have 3 legs? :)