« Riddle me this | Main | Busy busy busy! »
October 13, 2005
Zawahiri-Zarqawi agree - 'Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists'
CentCom has the communique from al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, and offers a succinct analysis of seven themes. Do read the whole thing. There is nothing really new in the letter; at least to those of us who have taken Islamism and its radical fascist threat seriously for the past four years. al-Qaeda is not in Iraq to help Iraqis, but to conquer them in their long-term goal of establishing a new Islamist Caliphate (which includes the destruction of Israel). What cannot be repeated often enough (because it will be ignored and/or dismissed by the usual members of the MSM)
“I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our nation.”From ANSWER to NION to Mommy Sheehan, those are the people al-Qaeda consider their tacit allies on the road to the Caliphate.
Posted by Darleen at October 13, 2005 06:25 AM
Comments
Hi, Darleen:
I just wanted to thank you for posting this, and for linking to the US Central Command webpage. We have a number of similar documents on our "What Extremists Are Saying" page. The previous ones can be found at http://www.centcom.mil/Archives_extremistssay.htm, or you can get there from our homepage, http://www.centcom.mil.
Thanks again.
SPC C. Flowers
CENTCOM Public Affairs
Posted by: SPC C. Flowers at October 13, 2005 08:03 AM
That term "fascist" as it relates to the Iraqi
insurgents (or jihadists in general) is misleading.
The fascist (at least as the term was used during
the 20th Century) meant someone who believed in
the secular all-powerful state.
Moslems may be many things, but even the most extreme aren't fascists. And they certainly arn't secularists.
My suspicion is that pro-war types are using the term "fascism," and "fascists" to legitimize the Iraq war/occupation as a conflict somehow similar to WW II.
The implication being, that all Americans should support what the US is doing in Iraq.
This ploy isn't working....
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at October 13, 2005 08:51 AM
How many more Iraqi's do we have to kill to convince them that we're on they're side?
Posted by: Tillman at October 13, 2005 01:08 PM
comment deleted by mgmt. no stalkers allowed
Posted by: aka stalker at October 13, 2005 09:40 PM
Goss
There are political systems that range from totalitarianism to those in which individual liberty are the basis of economics and government. The former Soviet Union and Cuba were/are Leftist totalitarian systems where all aspects of public/private is controlled ostensiblity by the Proletariat. Iran and Saudi Arabia are totalitarian systems of the extreme right. They can be descibed thusly as "fascist" because that is the term commonly used to describe Rightist totalitarian systems, regardless of their theocracy/secularism. Al Qaeda is not interested in anything but an Iranian style theocratic dictatorship, where society, from the running of businesses and government down to dictating entertainment and dress codes to individuals is the province of mullahs and enforced by "religious police." If you know anything about Hitler's style of fascism, he was an occultist and rejected normative western religions in order to band followers in a "death cult" not unlike the jihadists today. Hitler specifically rejected individualism. Hitler didn't fight "communists" because he was against their ideology, but because it was strictly a power struggle between totalitarian denominations.
Islamism, the radical moslem ideology that works toward a worldwide reestblishment of a totalitarian regime, controlling from the top level everything below it. By any other name, it is fascism, and smells as bad.
Posted by: Darleen at October 14, 2005 07:03 AM
Tillman
Last I looked it was ISLAMISTS killing Iraqis getting ready for a historic vote on their own constitution.
Now, why are you so against Iraqis having a constitution?
Posted by: Darleen at October 14, 2005 07:04 AM
It's interesting that al-Q wants democracy in Iraq.
Posted by: jpe at October 14, 2005 08:57 PM
Hmmm. US Cannot Explain Suspicials Zawahri letter passage.
It's interesting that this entire letter could have been written in a PNAC committee. Then again, it was interesting that the NYC subways had a terror alert that turned out to be a hoax, after about 72 hours of breathless Fox News countdown. (Funny how these wingers salivate at the thought of American deaths on US soil. Such patriotism...or is it morbid culture of death, since American deaths on US soil is what gave them their grip on power, a grip so strong only federal prosecutors will be able to break it.)
I think as we watch the Repub party slowly self-immolating, as they cannibalize themselves over the Miers nomination, and as more and more of their corrupt leaders get dragged into federal court, forcing the law and order freaks to coddle criminals with every bogus legal loophole they can find...I think unfortunately we will see more and more of this kind of psy-ops propaganda and calculated terror alerts. We know all about it here in NY. Bush may not have gotten many votes here, but he certainly wrung every drop of political blood he could out of whoring our dead and terrorizing our citizens with his politically motivated fear mongering.
You notice how little play this letter is getting? After capturing about 35 Number Two Al Queda , no one believes these phonies anymore and they don't go too far out on a limb trying to prove themselves. Wonder why?
Posted by: Snicker at October 15, 2005 04:51 AM
Darleen, your description of the type of government that Al Qaeda wants is correct. But is it not the same type of government that the radical republicans want?
RE: The Iraqi constitution, well that's great. Good for them. But when can we stop worrying about a civil war? That's the biggest issue in Iraq right now.
Posted by: Tillman at October 15, 2005 09:23 AM
Al Qaeda is not interested in anything but an Iranian style theocratic dictatorship, where society, from the running of businesses and government down to dictating entertainment and dress codes to individuals is the province of mullahs and enforced by "religious police."
Then why are they fighting the Constitution? That's exactly the kind of government the Shiite majority wants, and can easily now create, with this Constitution.
Can it be the genius Darleen does not understand that Iran is Shiite and has everything to gain by empowering the Shiite Iraqi majority? With this Constitution, the Kurds will go off to live in peace by themselves ( a good thing, perhaps the only one from this war) and the Shiites will inexorably ally themselves with their Iranian brothers, a victory for Iran that a century of warfare could not achieve. But the US has now spilled the blood of its own citizens to hand it to them. Brilliant!
The giveaway that this letter is a fake is the way they address all the US winger cliches - cut and run "like Vietnam", domino democracy, etc. What utter bullshit. It has also been exposed by Arabic scholars as likely being written by a Shiite, using Shiite colloquialisms.
Darleen is also incorrect about the Nazi use of religion. Not only did the Nazis have the support of German Protestant and (especially) Catholic Churches, but they were able to make good use of the submissiveness and worship of authority that the highly religious German population had been taught. When people respect "faith" over thought, it is much easier for them to submit to government control. Indeed, as we see here in our own country, they tend to enjoy submission and sycophancy.
Posted by: Snicker at October 15, 2005 10:29 AM
But is it not the same type of government that the radical republicans want?
Source your assertion, Tillman, or f*ck off. I don't expect the XtianZionistBu$Hitler Conspiracy to Establish a Theocracy crap from you. Hrubec, yes, cuz it's insane, but you're actually are capable of intelligent arguments.
Try one.
Posted by: Darleen at October 15, 2005 10:36 AM
Whoa there Darleen, I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you.
I shouldn't have to source the idea that the republicans support the idea of a Theocracy. They may not have a Theocracy per se, but what they always argue and legislate for is rooted in religious rather than secular beliefs. In itself, that isn't bad. But taken to an extreme, it can be. Religious morality can be horrible - witness the so-called "witches" burned alive at the stake in America's early history. Also, the sadistic fetish of punishment is another trait that Al Qaeda, Theocracy and republicans share.
Posted by: Tillman at October 15, 2005 11:01 AM
Tillman
You claim that Republicans want a theocracy the same as al Qaeda.
SOURCE it.
And you know you can't because no where but in the fevered imaginings of ZOG type conspiracies does it exist.
What is wrong with a morality based on religious tenets? As I've said before, I don't care where you got your values, just what those values ARE. Judeo-Christian values gets you Western Civilization.
You don't think "secularists" have any radical skeletons in their belief system?
:::cough::: Stalin :::cough::: Pol Pot ::: cough:::
the sadistic fetish of punishment is another trait that Al Qaeda, Theocracy and republicans share.
Again, assertions with no evidence. Jeeez Louise, can you do anything more such risible weirdness?
Start arguing facts not assertions, Tillman.
Posted by: Darleen at October 15, 2005 11:08 AM
Hrubec
I guess it's all of the ZOG.
meshugga schmuk
Posted by: Darleen at October 15, 2005 11:10 AM
Watch it, Tillman. If you challenge Darleen, here's the sequence:
1. She becomes a bile spewing shrew. You can almost see the spit flying she gets so mad. It's funny. She has absolutely no control over it. (But you'll notice it's almost a universal winger trait.)
2. She accuses you irrationally of being both insane and a traitor to your country. Just blindly, incoherently and knee-jerkedly. She can't help that either, I guess.
3. She unleashes unsourced bullshit and accusations that generally lead back to her one and only premise - "judeo christian" morals (which she never defines) are the basis of our law and civilization, and all who follow them (not necessarily any religion, since she herself is mostly a fan of "raunch culture") are superior to those who in any way question them, or don't respect them.
4. She never, ever, ever, under any circumstances addresses a salient point where you have proved her wrong.
She's a loon, but she stands apart from most of her brainless ilk by not banning her critics. Course, if she did, she'd be talking to herself, and her silent raunch loving sisters.
Posted by: Snicker at October 15, 2005 12:23 PM
Darleen, here is a whole web site dedicated to expaining the republican/theocracy deal: http://www.theocracywatch.org/
Consider me sourced about that one.
Snicker, yes she does get a bit testy, doesn't she? But she does deserve some credit for listening to the other side. At least she'll do that. (Only if more rad right people would listen. They insulate themselves into a cocoon of BS.)
Posted by: Tillman at October 15, 2005 12:57 PM
I do give her credit for that, Tillman. It is a rare right wing site that doesn't ban the opposition. Their cocoon seems to be what allows them to keep believing in their absolute correctness, even as their repubbie world is crashing down around them.
I don't know why Darleen doesn't ban me, actually, because she clearly detests me with an unhealthy passion, and there isn't a chance in hell she'll open her mind to any point of view other than her own. But thanks, Darleen, I appreciate it.
Posted by: Snicker at October 15, 2005 01:18 PM
Tillman
I opened the site and what do I see as "proof" of a ZOG conspiracy? Let's just take this statement:
The surest antidote to tyranny is a free people who believe it owes its allegiance to a Higher Power, not the government.Now, go read the opening lines of the Declaration of Indepedence, then get back to me on whether the Founding Fathers were instituting a theocracy or not.
YOU made the assertion that this is little or no difference between the goals of al-Qaeda and Republicans. A site that holds up someone's LEGITIMATE philosophical position that human rights are "inherent" and NOT granted by governments and describes such rights as vital to a FREE people is a site that has issues with religion/religious people in general and is using the idea of "theocracy" as a scare tactic against Americans of faith.
Here's another statement from someone who - if your site is to be taken seriously - tried to establish an American theocracy, too
And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
Posted by: Darleen at October 15, 2005 02:05 PM
Hrubec
Your insane spewings, unsubstantiated, only prove my own points. You are a bigot and letting bigots hang themselves is the best course.
You can do nothing but act on feelings rather than reason. You are of the "pink tribe" and a pretty good representative of its basic indecency.
Keep showing everyone the moral and character bankruptcy of the contemporary anti-American, anti-semitic Left.
Posted by: Darleen at October 15, 2005 02:09 PM
LOL, Darleen, I could have written that response for you.
Let's see?
Accuse of insanity? Check.
Accuse of bigotry? Oh, snap, I left that one out, that's your other favorite. I knew there were three. In any case, check.
Accuse of treason (ok, anti- Americanism)? Check.
Proclaims once again her superior "decency" (oh, god, lol)? Double check, with a little character bankruptcy thrown in.
Fails to address any of her exposed confusion vis a vis Iran/Iraq/Nazism/Fascism and religion? Check.
The only thing you missed, oh decent one? I'm not showing "everyone" anything. Only about three people read your silly blog. I just like to screw with you. You're my pet wingnut.
Posted by: Snicker at October 15, 2005 03:47 PM
YOU made the assertion that this is little or no difference between the goals of al-Qaeda and Republicans.
Um, no I didn’t Darleen. Read it again. My only claim was that your description of the type of government that Al Qaeda wants is what the republicans want. There is a big difference there.
Posted by: Tillman at October 16, 2005 12:54 PM
BTW, what's a blog stalker?
Posted by: Tillman at October 16, 2005 01:00 PM
Darleen uses Mashed Potato Logic. She takes various arguments you've made and mashes it all up using her own dogma until it comes out the other side ... that you're an insane anti-American bigot with no Judeo Christian morals. It's her comfort food.
Posted by: Snicker at October 16, 2005 01:27 PM
I think I found out what a blogstalker is:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/12/214543.php
I wouldn't tolerate that either Darleen.
Posted by: Tillman at October 16, 2005 05:27 PM
Tillman, a minor "quibble" if I may. Please differentiate the whole "what republicans want". As a Republican who opposed the invasion of Iraq (more on strategic/moral/logical grounds), and someone who's pretty damned secular in that I believe that you should be allowed to worship who/what you want, and leave my beliefs alone, too. I'd like to see something better than blind republo-bashing.
Having said that, I don't fully disagree with the gist of what you're saying, that there is a group of people out there that would like pretty much the same kind of Theocratic B.S. govt. that AQ wants to establish. The differences between some of these folks sometimes seems to boil down to they just want to use different books and one wants burkhas.
That these people identify themselves Republicans is just an unfortunate limitation of our current two-party political climate, in the same way that some people who want to establish a communist-style exclusive secular society are pretty sad that they identify themselves as Democrats. Obviously we need a "Theocrat" party now, since we already have a Communist party. :)
Posted by: W. Ian Blanton at October 20, 2005 12:19 AM