Elonka wrote:
The 7/2005 letter from al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's #2 in Al Qaeda), to Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Amongst the religious rhetoric, it lays out goals, strategy, and suggestions for PR (like "slaughtering hostages in public is probably not going to bring the public to your side").

Interesting reading.

It's now being called fake.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:
The 7/2005 letter from al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's #2 in Al Qaeda), to Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Amongst the religious rhetoric, it lays out goals, strategy, and suggestions for PR (like "slaughtering hostages in public is probably not going to bring the public to your side").

Interesting reading.

It's now being called fake.

Oh and by *such* a credible source, too. ;)

Elonka wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:
The 7/2005 letter from al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's #2 in Al Qaeda), to Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Amongst the religious rhetoric, it lays out goals, strategy, and suggestions for PR (like "slaughtering hostages in public is probably not going to bring the public to your side").

Interesting reading.

It's now being called fake.

Oh and by *such* a credible source, too. ;)

Why are they any less credible than the White House?

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:
The 7/2005 letter from al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's #2 in Al Qaeda), to Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Amongst the religious rhetoric, it lays out goals, strategy, and suggestions for PR (like "slaughtering hostages in public is probably not going to bring the public to your side").

Interesting reading.

It's now being called fake.

Oh and by *such* a credible source, too. ;)

Why are they any less credible than the White House?

Haven't we already had this discussion, about the difference between Al Qaeda and the U.S. Government? Oversight, checks and balances, public debate, etc.? The White House has multiple corroborating sources (such as the Pentagon and the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence), and if any one of them showed up as dubious, many news sites would be all over it. The purported Iraqi Al Qaeda site may well just be one guy with access to the net. It's not authenticated by anybody.

Elonka wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:
The 7/2005 letter from al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's #2 in Al Qaeda), to Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Amongst the religious rhetoric, it lays out goals, strategy, and suggestions for PR (like "slaughtering hostages in public is probably not going to bring the public to your side").

Interesting reading.

It's now being called fake.

Oh and by *such* a credible source, too. ;)

Why are they any less credible than the White House?

Haven't we already had this discussion, about the difference between Al Qaeda and the U.S. Government? Oversight, checks and balances, public debate, etc.? The White House has multiple corroborating sources (such as the Pentagon and the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence), and if any one of them showed up as dubious, many news sites would be all over it. The purported Iraqi Al Qaeda site may well just be one guy with access to the net. It's not authenticated by anybody.

Actually, that was a completely different discussion of the relative evils of the two groups. This relates to the veracity of claims made by each side, and on that front, I think Al Qaeda has been much more truthful when it comes to claims of things they have or have not said/done. Have they exagerated and inflated their claims? Yes, they do that to make things sound better for them, but I have yet to see a case where they say they have or have not done something that has not been basically factual. Do they not tell the whole truth? Yes, but that is a far cry from outright falsehood.

If you would like to find cases where at core they have lied about their claims, I will reconsider that, but there are so many cases where the White House has made claims that have no bearing in reality (anything said by Karl Rove, the Niger yellowcake document, yesterday's staged Q&A, "Mission Accomplished," we'll be greeted as liberators, I have a list of at least 10 foiled plots, etc.) that I am more prepared to accept Al Qaeda saying this was not sent by them, than I am to accept the White House saying it is.

And since Al Qaeda in Iraq saying it's a fake isn't enough, here's a second set of people questioning its authenticity

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Elonka wrote:
The 7/2005 letter from al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's #2 in Al Qaeda), to Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Amongst the religious rhetoric, it lays out goals, strategy, and suggestions for PR (like "slaughtering hostages in public is probably not going to bring the public to your side").

Interesting reading.

It's now being called fake.

According to Juan Cole, Al-Q may be correct. Congess' own think tank doesn't believe it either.

Please don't get pissed off cause we think you're cool and all but you can't see the forrest for the trees, so stop doing what you are doing right away. Also, could you please document all your processes so we can fire you and take over your operation? Oh, and if you happen to have $100,000 could you help a brother out? BTW, we think your web site is totally COOL!!!11 I've enclosed a copy of my latest spoken word album. If you could host it that would rock.

Translated by Decius. I had no idea he could speak Arabic...

Rattle wrote:

Please don't get pissed off cause we think you're cool and all but you can't see the forrest for the trees, so stop doing what you are doing right away. Also, could you please document all your processes so we can fire you and take over your operation? Oh, and if you happen to have $100,000 could you help a brother out? BTW, we think your web site is totally COOL!!!11 I've enclosed a copy of my latest spoken word album. If you could host it that would rock.

Translated by Decius. I had no idea he could speak Arabic...

A CS guy speaks Arabic? You are SO gonna get Tom drafted!

Decius wrote:

Read this whole letter - and see if you can discern what's going on here. Leaving Iraq anytime in the next 5 years will be very very bad.

This is an odd letter. Basically:

Please don't get pissed off cause we think you're cool and all but you can't see the forrest for the trees, so stop doing what you are doing right away. Also, could you please document all your processes so we can fire you are take over your operation? Oh, and if you happen to have $100,000 could you help a brother out? BTW, we think your web site is totally COOL!!!11 I've enclosed a copy of my latest spoken word album. If you could host it that would rock.

The cryptic signoff must mean that they don't trust their couriers to keep their mouths shut about who they are delivering messages for.

I said last month that Zarqawi was undermining Al'Q's broder strategic interests by declaring war on the Shia. Al'Q's leadership agrees with ME?! Now THATS something I never thought I would say!

I must say I was impressed with this gem of wisdom:

Judiciousness precedes the courage of the courageous which is second. And when the two blend in one free soul it reaches everywhere in the heavens.

I might offer the same advice to the Bush Administration on Iraq... And Mr. Bush, if you are reading, and you happen to have $100,000 lying around, I could really use it.

All joking aside...

1. America is going to leave Iraq. Sooner or later, it will happen, and the result will be inevitable.
2. An Islamic theocratic state is going to be established there.
3. People involved with the state will be connected directly to Al'Q.
4. It may be a greater threat to the region then Saddam's Iraq was.

This seems the most likely outcome to me. I am not happy to hear that Al'Q is getting exactly what they want. But I don't see how this is going to pan out differently.

The question is how much power will Al'Q have in the resulting state. Hopefully little, and Al'Z will continue to screw it up. The character of the resulting state in Iraq will have a huge impact on the future of world, and while people like Al'Z and the Iranians and the Americans are trying to influence it, it really comes down to the Iraqis. I hope Bush has read them well, but I fear that three very different cultures are easy to tear apart.

Having said that, I detect weakness in Zawahari. He sees the future of his movement in Iraq. That puts Al'Z in a very powerful position vis-a-vis Al'Q.

I hope your pessimism turns out to be wrong (sure sure, it's realism in your eyes).

I see the plan right now as -
(1) Build up 500,000 strong, and compitent miltary.
(2) Build up 30,000 compitent special forces.
(3) At that point, we should be able to leave and they should have enough power to fight for themselves.

MOREOVER - there own people handle it much better. For some reason, we are not being tough on the insurgents. We need to be heavy fisted, and I guess either Bush is a p@#$sy or there's some other reason we aren't fighting like the most powerful force in the history of planet Earth (as we are).... The Iraq's will shoot little children if they have too - and that's what we should be doing.

Perhaps the criticism from the socialist weak un-powerful Europe is making Bush act like a two-bit wimp? I dunno...