Oh, boy, I know this could be a contentious question and would understand if answering it would not be appropriate.
The news reports of the recent beheadings in Iraq, presumably by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, often refer to a website where the abductor’s demands, threats and videos are posted. Of course, the media never gives the website’s address, but I’d like to know so I can see it for myself.
That’s a pretty gruesome request. As such I will not post a link to it here.
Let me just say Google is your friend…even in this. I used one rather obvious word to search for that and got links on the first page of results Google returned.
And no…I did not follow or watch any of those videos.
Contention 1: There is no proof whatsoever that al-Zarqawi is alive, working in Iraq, or not in US custody. None at all. Many believe he is the “October Surprise Guy” for this election.
So your Subject goes off in the wrong direction right away.
The subject line is intended to succinctly encapsulate the question, and as such can’t convey the nuances of the question.
My reference to Abu Musab al-Zarqaw was qualified by saying the beheadings were presumably by him. Every major Western news organization I’ve seen has also said that he is believed to be behind some of the more notorious the kidnapping, and many believe that it is al-Zarqaw himself speaking in the videos.
I also find it interesting that whack-a-mole said he has found one. As far as I have been able to discern there aren’t any standing. There was one at http://ansar-alsonnah.8k.com/ but as you can see it was shut down to a TOS violation.
Perhaps I’m wrong but I don’t think there are any right now. I imagine the FBI/CIA pretty much has free reign on shutting those down.
www.ogrish.com shows those hideous beheading videos. I watched one and it’s still giving me nightmares. If you must, for your own sake, watch it with the sound off, trust me.
I’ve come across screenshots of terrorist Web sites in my travels. They all seem to share a certain school of design; front pages including image collages, photos with feathered edges, pixellated Arabic script, and odd color combinations (purple and green, anyone?) that render the site unattractive to Western eyes, yet still readable.
By “Western” I assume you mean American or pro-American. E.g., the fact that Saddam was captured first by Kurds was carried by several Western, but not American, newspapers. (It was covered by British, Indian, and Australian papers as far as English language searches on Google news revealed at the time.)
Now…
Your sources wouldn’t be the same sources that once stated that Saddam had WMDs and was in league with Osama wouldn’t they?