Zawahiri Rants and What It Implies

[Annie]

links and video at site:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018152.php

July 06, 2007
Jihadists On Defense

On July 4, Zawahiri released a new video tape. The production values are pretty good, and Zawahiri is intercut with other footage, including television clips. What is striking about Zawahiri's message, however, is how defensive it is. And what Zawahiri is defensive about, is events in Iraq.

He begins by talking about Iraq, and that remains the main subject although there are passing references to other fields of battle. His theme on Iraq is the need for unity. Reading between the lines, you can tell that Muslims, including relatively radical Muslims, are distancing themselves from al Qaeda in Iraq, or, as Zawahiri calls it, the Islamic State of Iraq. He criticizes clerics who say there is no duty to carry out jihad in Iraq. He contrasts al Qaeda in Iraq favorably with Hamas, and complains that while Hamas receives near-universal support, al Qaeda in Iraq suffers from "a storm of media campaigns, allegations and claims ... whipped up in their face."

In part, as many commentators have noted, Zawahiri's plea for unity in Iraq reflects the abandonment of al Qaeda by most Sunnis there, and the fact that many Sunnis have joined with the U.S. and the Iraqi government in fighting al Qaeda. But the defensiveness Zawahiri betrays goes well beyond that schism. He plainly is concerned about how things are going in Iraq, and is anxious to generate support for his organization's efforts there.

I've never understood the theory that Iraq is somehow unrelated to the broader war on terror. It would not be possible to read what al Qaeda's leaders have written and listen to their tapes, and hold that view. At one point, Zawahiri exhorts his followers to "[h]urry to Afghanistan, to Iraq, hurry to Somalia, hurry to Palestine, and hurry to the towering Atlas Mountains." If we were to abandon Iraq, can anyone doubt that the flow of jihadists to those other regions, and more, would increase?

...

 

[onedomino]

Those who insist that we abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda by bringing the troops home either do not realize, or do not care, about the wider implications for the War on Terror. After all, it's only a bumper sticker.

 

[Annie]

Those who insist that we abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda by bringing the troops home either do not realize, or do not care, about the wider implications for the War on Terror. After all, it's only a bumper sticker.

Exactly, bottom line.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Those who insist that we abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda by bringing the troops home either do not realize, or do not care, about the wider implications for the War on Terror. After all, it's only a bumper sticker.

The perhaps you and Bush owe the nation an apology. Al Qaeda wasn't in saddam-controlled Iraq before your war and occupation. You brought them there.

Second, Iraq is shia-dominated. The shia hate the sunni extremists. You did know that al qaeda was sunni, right? They've been blowing up and chopping the heads off iraqi shia by the tens of thousands. There's not a snow balls chance in hell the shia are going to let al qaeda "take over" Iraq.

Third, even a lot of sunni nationlists don't like al qaeda. Our own military estimates there's only a few thousand foreign fighters associated with al qaeda in iraq. They're not going to "take over" dude. That's another Bush talking point. Like the talking points he gave you to fool you into this war. Like the talking points given to you for five years, in an attempt to convince you that the war was going "great".

I suggest its time for you to stop allowing yourself to be fooled.

 

[onedomino]

The perhaps you and Bush owe the nation an apology. Al Qaeda wasn't in saddam-controlled Iraq before your war and occupation. You brought them there.

Second, Iraq is shia-dominated. The shia hate the sunni extremists. You did know that al qaeda was sunni, right? They've been blowing up and chopping the heads off iraqi shia by the tens of thousands. There's not a snow balls chance in hell the shia are going to let al qaeda "take over" Iraq.

Third, even a lot of sunni nationlists don't like al qaeda. Our own military estimates there's only a few thousand foreign fighters associated with al qaeda in iraq. They're not going to "take over" dude. That's another Bush talking point. Like the talking points he gave you to fool you into this war. Like the talking points given to you for five years, in an attempt to convince you that the war was going "great".

I suggest its time for you to stop allowing yourself to be fooled.

I was referring to the fact that people like you discount what Zawahiri says. Do you think that there will not be a massive bloodbath between Shiites and Sunnis if the US pulls out? Perhaps attempted genocide by both sides? Do you not think that the situation will blow up into regional war? As bad as it is now, the situation if we run away will be far worse. America and its allies invaded Iraq. It is their responsibility to bring it under control. We cannot, as people like you would have it, just run away now that the invasion has unleashed chaotic forces. You are unrealistic if you think that "a few thousand foreign fighters" (you meant murderers) cannot destroy the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Constitution that we have given 3500 lives and $500 billion to secure. They have already murdered tens of thousands and succeeded in causing civil war. Moreover, if we leave there will be a massive influx of additional foreign murderers.

 

[Annie]

I was referring to the fact that people like you discount what Zawahiri says. Do you think that there will not be a massive bloodbath between Shiites and Sunnis if the US pulls out? Perhaps attempted genocide by both sides? Do you not think that the situation will blow up into regional war? As bad as it is now, the situation if we run away will be far worse. America and its allies invaded Iraq. It is their responsibility to bring it under control. We cannot, as people like you would have it, just run away now that the invasion has unleashed chaotic forces. You are unrealistic if you think that "a few thousand foreign fighters" (you meant murderers) cannot destroy the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Constitution that we have given 3500 lives and $500 billion to secure. They have already murdered tens of thousands and succeeded in causing civil war. Moreover, if we leave there will be a massive influx of additional foreign murderers.

Not to mention while many thought enter the Iraq War was a good idea, reality had a way of raising serious questions about leadership. There was a political and military price to pay for those mistakes.

Now the other side, which called for increased levels of troops before the administration, is ignoring the gains being made. That is as wrong as anything, when the outcome of premature withdrawal can be forseen.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Domino,

I challenge you to find one post where I've ever discounted the threat from zarqawi or al qaeda. You won't find one. I don't understand why you feel the need to "educate" liberals on the threat of international islamic jihaddits.

I was the one who told you not to invade iraq, and to instead focus on al qaeda and affiliated international jihaddists - and not to go off on a tangent and invade iraq: a secular, socialist nation with no ties to al qaeda. With a ruler that in fact, hated islamic fundamentalist jihaddists and considered them a threat to his own regime.

I also am simply pointing out that al qaeda in iraq does not have the capacity to "take over" iraq. That was a false statment. The iraqi shia simply won't allow it. They will kill every sunni extremist to prevent that from happening.

As for the sunni-shia civil war: I'm glad you now belatedly recognize the mess Bush has gotten us into - because this is exactly what many anti-war people warned you might happen four years ago. Better late than never, that you recognize we were right.

I don't think there's anything 150k american troops can do to stop a civil war. That's for the iraqis to sort out. We were not told by your president that we were invading iraq to start - and then stop - a civil war. It's tragic. But, it's not only beyond our control. Its a political problem the countries in the region will have to deal with. No one listens to bush anymore. He has no respect or influence in the region

 

[red states rule]

Dems plan to fight terrorism

 

[dilloduck]

Domino,

I challenge you to find one post where I've ever discounted the threat from zarqawi or al qaeda. You won't find one. I don't understand why you feel the need to "educate" liberals on the threat of international islamic jihaddits.

I was the one who told you not to invade iraq, and to instead focus on al qaeda and affiliated international jihaddists - and not to go off on a tangent and invade iraq: a secular, socialist nation with no ties to al qaeda. With a ruler that in fact, hated islamic fundamentalist jihaddists and considered them a threat to his own regime.

I also am simply pointing out that al qaeda in iraq does not have the capacity to "take over" iraq. That was a false statment. The iraqi shia simply won't allow it. They will kill every sunni extremist to prevent that from happening.

As for the sunni-shia civil war: I'm glad you now belatedly recognize the mess Bush has gotten us into - because this is exactly what many anti-war people warned you might happen four years ago. Better late than never, that you recognize we were right.

I don't think there's anything 150k american troops can do to stop a civil war. That's for the iraqis to sort out. We were not told by your president that we were invading iraq to start - and then stop - a civil war. It's tragic. But, it's not only beyond our control. Its a political problem the countries in the region will have to deal with. No one listens to bush anymore. He has no respect or influence in the region

After you get over whining about the past, please tell us what you think are all the consequences of an immediate US withdrawal from the mideast. Please include where to send these troops since Al quaeda ( who you claim is the "real" enemy ) remains an active force who still plan to attack Jews, Christians and the Western interests ( whatever that means).

 

[red states rule]

I doubt if libs will ever get it

Even if Israel should disappear in a mushroom cloud - libs will continue to ignore terrorism and consider the war on terror a bumber sticker slogan

 

[DeadCanDance]

After you get over whining about the past,

Until you war cheerleaders admit your war was a mistake, we're prone to making the same mistake in the future. As long as you continue to think your war on Iraq was a brilliant idea, we might just fall into the same trap again.

please tell us what you think are all the consequences of an immediate US withdrawal from the mideast.

First, I'm not advocating an "immediate" withdrawl. I think it's prudent to plan and implement an orderly redeployment.

Second, neither I nor Jack Murtha have advocated a withdrawl from "the middle east". As murtha said, we can redeploy forces to kuwait, qatar, baharain, even iraq kurdistan - to serve as forward-deployed forces to strike at al qaeda in the region, where and when appropriate.

Please include where to send these troops since Al quaeda ( who you claim is the "real" enemy ) remains an active force who still plan to attack Jews, Christians and the Western interests ( whatever that means).

What will happen in iraq is exactly what is happening now. A civil war. We're not going to stop it, with 150k troops. It's up to the iraqis to stop it.

As for you question on al qaeda, please refer back to previous response. Al qaeda is not going to "take over" iraq. The majority iraqi shia won't allow it. They will kill every member of al qaeda they can track down. You did know that al qaeda was an extremist sunni organization, didn't you? The sunni extremists have been blowing up and chopping the heads off iraqi shia by the tens of thousands. The majority shia won't sit by and twiddle their thumbs as a few thousand foreign al qaeda fighters try to "take over" iraq.

 

[Annie]

Murtha suggested Okinawa.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Cypress: First, I'm not advocating an "immediate" withdrawl. I think it's prudent to plan and implement an orderly redeployment.

Second, neither I nor Jack Murtha have advocated a withdrawl from "the middle east". As murtha said, we can redeploy forces to kuwait, qatar, baharain, even iraq kurdistan - to serve as forward-deployed forces to strike at al qaeda in the region, where and when appropriate.

Murtha suggested Okinawa.

He said Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar - with Okinawa being a staging area to move troops in the middle east. That's what we do with Okinawa now.


-Murtha, on where to redeploy (from “Meet the Press” interview):

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/page/2/

 

[Annie]

Cypress: First, I'm not advocating an "immediate" withdrawl. I think it's prudent to plan and implement an orderly redeployment.

Second, neither I nor Jack Murtha have advocated a withdrawl from "the middle east". As murtha said, we can redeploy forces to kuwait, qatar, baharain, even iraq kurdistan - to serve as forward-deployed forces to strike at al qaeda in the region, where and when appropriate.




He said Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar - with Okinawa being a staging area to move troops in the middle east. That's what we do with Okinawa now.


-Murtha, on where to redeploy (from “Meet the Press” interview):

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/page/2/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/page/2/

MR. RUSSERT: You say redeploy. Again, Mr. Rove challenges that comment.

Let’s listen and give you again a chance to respond to the White House.

(Videotape, Monday):

MR. ROVE: Congressman Murtha said, “Let’s redeploy them immediately to another country in the Middle East. Let’s get out of Iraq and go to another country.” My question is, what country would take us? What country would say after the United States cut and run from Iraq, what country in the Middle East would say, “Yeah. Paint a big target on our back and then you’ll cut and run on us.” What country would say that? What country would accept our troops?

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: What’s your response?

REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.

MR. RUSSERT: Who?

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.

REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.

 

[DeadCanDance]

1) Do you deny he said we can stage troops in the immediate region - qatar, kuwait, and bahrain?

If you don't deny it, then what are we arguing about?


2) Okinawa can be used as a staging area for troops. Marines stage there NOW, for deployment to Iraq. Aircraft CAN launch airstrikes out of okinawa. Christ, b-2 bombers launch strikes around the planet from bases in the united states right now.

I've never heard one Military commander contradict murtha, that military assests out of okinawa can be deployed to the gulf. It's only the Rush Limbaughs and Michele Malkins of the world, that try to make a big deal out of this.


And it's all a diversion. Unless you can deny that he said we could deploy to kuwait, baharain and qatar, this is just a diversion.

 

[Annie]

1) Do you deny he said we can stage troops in the immediate region - qatar, kuwait, and bahrain?

If you don't deny it, then what are we arguing about?


2) Okinawa can be used as a staging area for troops. Marines stage there NOW, for deployment to Iraq. Aircraft CAN launch airstrikes out of okinawa. Christ, b-2 bombers launch strikes around the planet from bases in the united states right now.

I've never heard one Military commander contradict murtha, that military assests out of okinawa can be deployed to the gulf. It's only the Rush Limbaughs and Michele Malkins of the world, that try to make a big deal out of this.


And it's all a diversion. Unless you can deny that he said we could deploy to kuwait, baharain and qatar, this is just a diversion.

It was you trying to create a diversion, by leaving out Okinawa, which we all know about.

As for the rest, IF the reason OBL and ilk are attacking the West, is because of the infidels being in Islamic lands, how does the plan work?

 

[DeadCanDance]

It was you trying to create a diversion, by leaving out Okinawa, which we all know about.

As for the rest, IF the reason OBL and ilk are attacking the West, is because of the infidels being in Islamic lands, how does the plan work?

Be honest kathy: you had no clue that murtha said we should redeploy to bahrain, kuwait, and qatar. Just admit it.


You just hung out on some wingnut partisan websites, that instructed you to think that murtha simply said we should redeploy our forces to okinawa - without giving you his broader statement, about redeploying in the immediate area in the persian gulf.

 

[Annie]

Be honest kathy: you had no clue that murtha said we should redeploy to bahrain, kuwait, and qatar. Just admit it.


You just hung out on some wingnut partisan websites, that instructed you to think that murtha simply said we should redeploy our forces to okinawa - without giving you his broader statement, about redeploying in the immediate area in the persian gulf.

Again trying to divert, ignoring the point that all those countries, save the locale of Okinawa are Islamic.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Again trying to divert, ignoring the point that all those countries, save the locale of Okinawa are Islamic.

You didn't answer the question:

Until I showed you, were you unaware that Murtha said we could redeploy to kuwait, bahrain, and quatar? (in addition of logistical staging areas in okinawa)

Be honest. You were clueless, that murtha said baharain, kuwait, and qatar. Otherwise you would have jumped into the thread, with the "he said okinawa!" post

 

[Annie]

You didn't answer the question:

Until I showed you, were you unaware that Murtha said we could redeploy to kuwait, bahrain, and quatar (in addition of logistical staging areas in okinawa)

Be honest. You were clueless, that murtha said baharain, kuwait, and qatar. Otherwise you would have jumped into the thread, with the "he said okinawa!" post

Your saying something does not make it true. I did answer the questions. And just for your demand of information, yes I did know about the countries suggested, as I watched that Meet the Press at the time of airing.