Al-Qaeda's Deppity Dawg tries to rally the troops, and thereby indicates that some may regard the Islamic State of Iraq with skepticism, and that the tiff with Hamas has not been papered over. "Al-Qaeda deputy sets out strategy," by Roger Hardy for the BBC:
Al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri has urged Muslims to unite behind the movement's global jihad - and called for the violent overthrow of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.Zawahiri's new video, an hour and a half long, has been posted on the internet. It is not clear when it was recorded.
In a wide-ranging review of developments in the Muslim world, Zawahiri lays great stress on the central role of Iraq.
He claims Iraqis are increasingly supporting the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, proclaimed in predominantly Sunni areas by an al-Qaeda affiliate.
The success of the Islamic State, he says, is crucial to the revival of a global, pan-Islamic caliphate.
Jihadist unity
Zawahiri underlines the need for unity in Iraq - an implicit acknowledgement that splits have opened up in Sunni ranks.
The Americans and the Baghdad government have been encouraging Sunni tribal leaders to join the fight against al-Qaeda.
He disputes the claim that the Islamic State of Iraq lacks legitimacy and the trappings of statehood.
It is more legitimate, he declares caustically, than the Hamas-Fatah government set up in Gaza and the West Bank.
That government was created in February and has since collapsed - which might suggest the video was made some time ago.
As in the past, the al-Qaeda number two castigates Hamas for "giving away four-fifths of Palestine", the territory which became Israel in 1948.
Can you imagine the scale of warfare and mutual destruction in Iraq between Al-Qaeda in Mesapotamia and the combined forces of the Iraqi Shia with their correligionists in Iran?
Should be quite thrilling to watch as the religious devotees of the opposing sects fight to their mutual assured destruction.
Now if we infidels would just get the hell out of the way.
Just as soon we take out Zawahiri and Bin Laden.
And then, if necessary, those who fund the mosques in the West.
The Saudi princes?
So be it.
Perhaps keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been the better alternative as it seems that his presence in the region served to deter such sentiments. His heavy hand in Iraq, given the amount of partisan intransigence at this moment in time, may have been necessary to consolidate his power, and hold Iraq together as a nation - as twisted as this may be. We are not dealing with a western culture. We are not even dealing with cultures that seem logical most of the time. Blood feuds and brutality is all this region knows. Raw power is the only thing that is understood. The biggest bully will reign, as it will be when we pull out our troops.We are only biding time for the inevitable. And now the balance of power in the region has been permanently upset, the ramifications of which can only be imagined. However, Zawahiri should be taken at his word in his opportunistic craving for the emergence of a Caliphate.We are swimming against the tide. It is time we reassign our troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, where a government is already functioning relatively well, and where Osama is hiding.
ust curious but can anyone tell me WHY Saudi Arabia get's AID from the westand primarily the US? aren't these greedy buggers unbelievably filthy rich off us already ?, you know OIL!
I know the Royal Family hords most of the money for themselves , but is it our job to help feed the masses when there is more than enough money to go around? I bet a lot of the aid just rerouted back into their funding of Radical mosques.
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#modern
what the Caliphate looks like.
Now if we infidels would just get the hell out of the way.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
And NO "refugees" to the West, either!!! They need to do their business over there - at home. We don't want these ***** over here.
Zawahiri's pronouncement is just one more example of how Islam is a burden to the entire world. I suppose it was virtually inevitable that eventually a major religion would come along that was not intrinsically good. It did. It's called Islam.
-Perhaps keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been the better alternative as it seems that his presence in the region served to deter such sentiments.
-Triphammer
Man, I've wondered about that scenerio myself for some time now, too. In my heart, and with my 20/20 hindsight, Saddam was a sadistic villian, there's no doubt about it; but at least he was Our sadistic villian in the region, once even the U.S.' close confidant. During the 1990s, we should have slapped him down for his invasion of Kuwait, sure, but also kept him as our ace (of Spades) in the hole, much like we have our ally, President/General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.
I am fully in support of our vision for Iraq as a free, Arab democracy, and of our troops there. But I just can't rid myself of the nagging thought, "What if we'd kept using him as our tool, while we learned the intricacies of Islam and how to successfully counteract it, instead?"
Nevertheless, America has focused al Qaeda's attention to Iraq now, and we must not waver in support of our troops or of the Iraqi polis. now.
But it will be a long slog.
Greetings:
And where is cutie-pie Usama Bin these days?
Our enemies tell us what they're going to do, and our leaders stick their heads farther up their butts. Great!! And the left, once again keeps pointing their fingers and shouting, "Be nice and the'll leave us alone". Its getting to be that time, folks so remember, "gun control is hitting your target with the first bullet"
"Islamophobes of the world, Unite!"
Minimizing vulnerability to categorization as a “hate site” and consequent banning
Spencer should on a regular if infrequent basis demonstrate, more specifically than he can do with a mere general statement of principle repeated at the top of each thread, that his views are distinct particularly from those of his commenters who support him, but with whom he disagrees with regard to aspects of their thinking he considers cross the line, even if only slightly, from objectivity into something resembling mere irrational hate.
I’m not referring to obviously offensive, slanderous, racist or obscene comments. When noticed, those are summarily deleted, so they are not the main problem. No, I mean comments that have some merit and that do not need to be deleted, but that for perhaps subtle reasons Spencer would say cross the line into, or even merely teeter toward, irrational hate.
Perhaps as a monthly feature, Spencer should post at his site an analysis of such a comment, and could do so without any preachy implication that the commenter should reform. Spencer’s public analysis could be simply a way for Spencer to outline his own position by contrast.
Only repeated specific demonstrations – not just a general, static statement of principle at the top of each thread -- can adequately counter the very specific impressions created by Robert Spencer's proximity to the ever new comments made at this site, some of which are crudely, some subtly, hateful.
To fully grasp this, recall that certain Indian tribes assumed to begin with that the conquistador and the horse he was riding were a single being. The tribes in question had apparently never seen horses except with conquistadors on them. Even if conquistadors had worn a button with words in Indian languages stating "I am distinct from this horse, and the fact that I am riding it should IN NO WAY be construed as indicating it is organically part of me," still, until conquistadors actually dismounted and perceptually demonstrated their distinctness from horses, the Indians in question would have retained a perceptual and therefore powerful bias that the man and the horse were a single being. I’m saying that Spencer should get off the horse once in a while so we Indians can see he really is not part of it: explain in a regularly featured public post why this or that “supportive” comment crossed the line.
If Spencer does not wish to contribute to site-visitors misunderstanding him, he should give more consideration to the fact that human beings, or most of us, are fairly concrete and need demonstrations to fully grasp statements of general principle – including the general principle stated at the top of each thread: that his permission of comments here in no way constitutes agreement with those comments.
...Big Al sounding a bit worried these days.....a clear sign he is getting desparate...he may have won a few battles, but he is losing the war...and he knows it...Islam is for losers...
Localmalcontent
I have also been trying to wrap my mind around of all of this in some sort of logical way as far as 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, Islam, and how all of this sorts out. Seems to me that the Islamization of Europe was going along pretty well like the frog in the pot of slowly heated water. If you surmise that as demographics change in Europe at some point there will be conflict as Islam gains power to elect Shariaa law into force, which it will if given enough time.
9/11 happens. It is a catalyst for events that change perceptions. 9/11 itself changed nothing. Maybe some people bought the Qur’an and made some halfhearted effort to understand it. Still many all over the world called for moderation in America’s response. Islam itself was not at this point regarded as a threat to western Democracy. Then the invasion of Iraq happens, and it opens the global Islamic Pandora’s box if you will. Debate about Iraq, Islam, and the west actually starts happening on a large scale. Not as a response to 9/11, but about Iraq. Included in the debate are things Islamists say and do ... much of which is being said and done in our own back yard. Michael Savage coined the phrase "Islamofascist" early in this debate, and it stuck. The idea of Islamic domination went from a western perception of something over there in the middle east to over here as a result of this. This realization happened decades earlier than it would have if not for Iraq. I believe that the conflict that is about to explode in Europe will be yet another hurdle for western society on the level of ww2. No matter how Iraq turns out historically it will have served as the west’s wake up call to the danger in our midst. Currently I am struggling with the term al Queda ... and "radical Islam". We need to do away with both I think. These Islamofascists are soldiers in a war against the west. They belong to the religion of Islam whose main goal is to establish Shariaa law through the Caliphate over the entire world and universe. This idea is not "radical" Islam it is Islam Islam there is only one Islam.
I think Iraqi Democracy is a lofty goal, but might be impossible. Had we left Saddam to his devices I think the status quo would have been the norm for the day. No debate over Islam in the west and all of its ramifications. No Jihad Watch, Roberts books would have gone largely unread, and I wouldn’t own highlighted, cross-referenced, dog-eared books written by Robert. Europe would have happily slept until Islamic civil war was too far along in its malignancy to be treated without killing the patient. Check and mate the west looses the final battle.
Had we left Saddam to his devices I think the status quo would have been the norm for the day. No debate over Islam in the west and all of its ramifications. No Jihad Watch, Roberts books would have gone largely unread, and I wouldn’t own highlighted, cross-referenced, dog-eared books written by Robert.
--posted by Ameriki
Amriki, you're sounding like a dhimmi! Does your memory of Islamic outrages begin and end on March 2003? On September 11, 2001?
Muslim terrorism has been a non-stop phenomenon ever since that fiend muhammad the anti-Christ, decided he wanted to be the messiah to the Jews and having failed at that, to usurp the glory of Jesus Christ. Rest assured, there would have been no let-up in Jihad even if we had not invaded Iraq (stupidly) in March 2003.
LOL I am no Dhimmi hehe. Oh to the most extreeme inverse my friend I hate Islam with every fiber of my being and more. I am merely talking facts here about large scale public preception only. Hard for me to believe you came away with that if you read the whole posting. I would suggest reading the whole thing if you skipped the middle. Oh I feel all dirty now I've said something to cause people to believe I'm a Dhimmi.
I say restore the Caliphate. Then we will get the official reading of what is permitted and/or mandated in Islam.
No more misinterpretations already.
I think Iraqi Democracy is a lofty goal, but might be impossible.
posted by Amriki
"Might be impossible"????????????????
WTF??????????
Dude, your talking about muhammadans!!!!!!
Do you know of any democracies in Muslim countries??? (Lebanon is multi-sectarian). We call King Jorge al-Saud ibn Bush a dhimmi for saying shit like "we're gonna bring democracy to those ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East..."
Now he's a dhimmi!!!!!
Muslim moms and dads are not "ordinary" moms and dads.
Muslim Doctors are not "ordinary" doctors. Their brain-dead Satanists!
Sorry to call you a dhimmi, but this kind of namby pamby "might be impossible" should have been "is a total absurdity."
Ameriki,
I get ya...you're basically making clear that the public wouldn't otherwise get this issue to the extent it has to-date.
All I needed was 9/11 & the snipers to get my attention, but how late was that??? There's so much to distract us, it's easy to 'assume' it's not our problem or that our enemy looks and acts like we do or like previous known enemies.
Neither could be further from the truth...it IS our problem throughout the globe, and we just have to address it before it's too late, if it's not already. If it's too late, we still have to fight...even if it's hand-to-hand (which I don't discount as a possibility in the future).
Is that a good way of making the same point you were making?
PS - I skipped the middle part.
"What was that middle thing again?" -Otto
taqqiyya....i suspect black muslim convert in the southwest USA....
I was trying to be nice ok "might" was a "little" optimistic. That was a fair judgement. No there aren't any Democracies in the Islamic world ... if we are to facilitate the birth of one in Iraq then we will have done the "impossible". Islamic "Democracy" is as much of a pipe dream as Islamic "Reformation". A dream to stem the tide of what is a bleak future for the world if things continue unchecked.
Ameriki-
You reinforce my point, when in your post you say:"Islam itself was not at this point regarded as a threat to western Democracy. Then the invasion of Iraq happens, and it opens the global Islamic Pandora’s box if you will."
A Pandors's Box, and how!
However we part ways, in whether Islam in Europe would ever eventually overcome the traditional Judeo-Christian roots there. For if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, instead keeping our Saddam proped up against, and thwarting Iran's regional influence, the spectre of Islam's quest of a worldwide "Ummah" would have surfaced somewhere else. Likewise, as you cite the 9/11 attacks against America, I also cite the U.S.' war on terrorism in Afghanistan as a logical step in the progression in realizing that Islam threatens the West; Jihadists, al Qaeda, Hamas, et.al. would still have sprung up, but with less fury and less acceptance within Islam.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq only focused Islamic wrath there physically, but worldwide emotionally. Mr. Robert Spencer would still have written his books, JW would exist still, and the radical extremeists would be recognized as dangers in Spain, Great Britain, or in France instead.
I'll always feel that the Iraq invasion on the part of the U.S. Allied forces was a blunder, personally thinking that Saddam Hussein should have instead been privately admonished by the U.S. For had we taken this tack, the West would have a lapdog Arab in our back-pocket, who could stare down Iran's Ahmadinejad and his kook Imam, keep the Iraqi Kurds from straining Turkey's patience and friendship with the West, all the while being a reliable supplier of crude oil to the West.
Instead of fighting al Qaeda there in Iraq, amongst the dozens of regional, tribal factions, the West would counter AQ where they live, where they spread (Europe, Africa) with less focus, with less concentration in those locales than that which the Allies face today in Iraq.
This scenerio that I imagine also assumes that the Islamic Republic of Iran would feel threatened more by Saddam in neighboring Iraq, directing her jihadi-focus there rather than Hezbollah in Lebannon, or Hamas in Gaza. Maybe this illusion keeps America out of one boining pot while being plunked into another, but I see this outlook as preferable, with Islamic extremist, Jihadist anger more diffused, elsewhere.
Ameriki, we are in agreement, ultimately; I only point out that history could have been far different, given a more cunning policy regarding Iraq. A policy which would have provide the West with time to more fully analyze 'Islam', and it's geopolitical ambitions.
Now though, I only foresee World War III, unless widespread sites like JihadWatch, some others, can make a real difference, as well as a spread of logic, (love?) and a recognition, a respect of human rights of a-time-other-than-the-8th-Century, happens.
I see this as less than a "War of Civilizations", as a War of Eras, the past verses the future.
Yet another Muslim doctor. He was here in the US both in 1991 & 1995, received enthusiastically by Muslims here, recruiting for jihad. It was already known he was involved in Sadat's assassination, and yet he had no difficulty visiting & recruiting with utmost ease, actually aided by our Criminal Imbecile Agency, just as the Blind Sheikh was, just as thousands of his al-Kifah jihad network were, the al-Kifah that turned into al-Qaida in a snap. Is there any doubt he would be easily hired by our Sicko Medical-Industrial Complex if he applied for a doctors' position?
But "at least he has a diploma", "at least he is educated", just like Doctor Mengele was, right Islamo - Nazi "progressive" sleazebag?
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
bad typing, bad keyboard syndrome here too.
I meant "boiling", when I wrote '-Maybe this illusion keeps America out of one boining pot while being plunked into another, but....'
maybe "boinking" works, too.
localmalcontent,
If I may disagree with your thesis:
The west's "sadistic villain" was the Shah of Iran. The Shah was the one who kept Iraq at bay. Iraq, Syria and other secular governments were aligned with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union kept Iraq in line. Saddam was never "our" guy. What happened to throw everything off was the Iranian revolution, for which we can thank Jimmy Carter.
Saddam started the war with Iran but Iran wouldn't stop until Baghdad was brought down. That forced the US to "tilt" toward Iraq in order to maintain the balance, a balance that had been destroyed by Jimmy Carter just three years earlier. We didn't involve ourselves until it actually appeared that Saddam might be overrun.
Saddam was a product of the Arab imperial dream and the end of the cold war cost him and many other Arab governments the sponsorship of the USSR. He had brought his country to the brink of bankruptcy with the war with Iran and was looking to Kuwait to bail him out.
Saddam then put himself in a more precarious position when he invaded Kuwait. Even after Saddam was allowed to withdraw it was not clear that he wouldn't try again. Some will point to April Glaspie who said the US had no position on Iraq's feud with Kuwait about an oil field on their border but a border dispute doesn't necessitate invasion. Not picking sides in a boundary dispute is not akin to picking sides in a war.
It's not clear to me how Saddam could ever have been a US lapdog. He used the US when it suited him (as we did him, that's international politics) but there was no reason to believe he would suddenly behave. His hold on power was a violent one and it was maintained by holding the Iraqi people under his grip, as the many mass graves attest to. The day he was seen as kowtowing to the US he would have been killed.
Al Qaeda and Iran despised him. In the decade after the Iraq war he had seemed to move closer and closer to the Islamists, in order to maintain his regime. One theory has it that he was responsible for the first WTC bombing, though I don't know how credible Laurie Mylroie is.
Keeping Saddam "contained" (as some put it) was accomplished only by keeping American troops nearby. Keeping our troops on hand to protect Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and all the other oil potentates from Saddam brought us 9/11.
In all that time we were "supporting" Saddam, Iran continued exporting its revolution, first to Lebanon and then to the territories. It would have made its way to the Shi'a in Iraq sooner or later.
I was a reluctant supporter of the invasion. 9/11 made it seem almost logical. If we were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia then remove the reason for our being there: Saddam.
We opened Pandora's Box but I don't know what other options we had. It's a cliche but it's true: 9/11 changed everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAq9PpCUgYU&mode=related&search=
Pandoras box.
A British Dr. suprise suprise suprise. We hear you.
Pandoras box was here in Islam only a matter of time before it opened, what opened it is entirely Irrelevant.
For had we taken this tack, the West would have a lapdog Arab in our back-pocket, who could stare down Iran's Ahmadinejad and his kook Imam, keep the Iraqi Kurds from straining Turkey's patience and friendship with the West, all the while being a reliable supplier of crude oil to the West.
Sorry, but as a European I am SICK and TIRED of the US keeping Turkey as a "friend" of the West!
To do so is at the expense of mainly Germany and to a lesser extent - the rest of the EU. That must come to an END.
You Americans complain about Mexicans?! Try Turks if you're so sick of the Mexicans! We'd GLADLY TRADE with you!!!!
We'll take one Mexican off your hands for every Turk you take off ours. You can have the most "educated" or whatever Turks.. and we will take even the most destitude non-English-speaking Mexicans and I'd consider that a GREAT DEAL for Germany.
Please.. NO MORE talking about Turkey as a friend!