The al-Zarqawi (al-Qaeda) letter

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-15 03:26am

link

It may be fake, but the CPA and IGC seem to think it's real. Comments?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-15 03:36am

The letter seems to be real to me. After all the claims about Americans being etc are what Al-Queda regularly does.

BTW why is the Coalition site in english ? They are forgeting the Iraqis and people from other mideast countries visiting the site.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-15 03:41am

Click on the Arabic lettering under the Iraqi flag. It could have been labeled better.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-15 04:11am

Joe wrote:Click on the Arabic lettering under the Iraqi flag. It could have been labeled better.

I think that it is labeled just fine for Arabic speakers.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-02-15 04:45am

Bah, it is obviously a CIA lie. What's wrong with everyone... isn't it obvious that this is another evil Bush conspiracy.

It's really just the Iraqi people that need to be set free from the evil U.S. troops. This letter is forged to cast a bad light on the freedom fighters of Iraq...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-15 05:28am

D. The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a. Despite their weakness, the Sunnis are strong-willed and honest and different from the coward and deceitful Shi'a, who only attack the weak. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people and they fear them. If it were not for those disappointing shaykhs, Sufis, and Muslim brothers, Sunnis would have a different attitude.

It's been a while since I read such blatant hypocrisy. That's an accurate translation of the text (I went through the Arabic version, too), except that the "military symbols" is more accurately translated as "military relics" (in the sense of reliquaries and sacred objects). The idea that you are going to attack someone in an effort to make them show how violent THEY are is ludicrous and pathetic.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-15 02:50pm

The idea that you are going to attack someone in an effort to make them show how violent THEY are is ludicrous and pathetic.

How so? It's apparently what Osama bin Laden had in mind when he orchestrated the attacks of September 11th, 2001: oblige the United States to respond to Muslim terrorists and thereby alienate from them the Muslim world in general, thereby gaining new adherants to his own cause.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-15 06:04pm

Axis Kast wrote: How so? It's apparently what Osama bin Laden had in mind when he orchestrated the attacks of September 11th, 2001: oblige the United States to respond to Muslim terrorists and thereby alienate from them the Muslim world in general, thereby gaining new adherants to his own cause.

While I agree that it's been the consistent strategy of Muslim fundamentalist terror cells and that it's sometimes been effective for them in the past, the central idea is bullshit. Think about it: you're attacking SOMEONE ELSE to show people how violent THEY are. Does this not strike you as being ridiculous? Do you not see the hypocrisy central to the objective?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-16 02:35am

While I agree that it's been the consistent strategy of Muslim fundamentalist terror cells and that it's sometimes been effective for them in the past, the central idea is bullshit. Think about it: you're attacking SOMEONE ELSE to show people how violent THEY are. Does this not strike you as being ridiculous? Do you not see the hypocrisy central to the objective?

Of course the hypocrisy is evident. Nevertheless, you still prefaced your reply with a quallifier about its apparent utility.

Considering that most of the population now behind Osama bin Laden is so alligned because of the additional conflicts and broad response that his original assault demanded in the first place. If he calculated that we'd inflict secondary damage as we pursued him - no matter how rational and controlled our methods -, then he calculated correctly. Even if not, his ranks were still swelled.

People either saw his attack as justified in the first place - and therefore a reply rather than a provocation -, or saw our response as being too broad because somehow, they had become caught in the middle (which was really unavoidable, but no less acceptable from their point of view).