TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Zawahiri's Lament

Zawahiri's Lament

From today's WSJ:

quote:

Zawahiri's Lament October 13, 2005; Page A14 Ayman al Zawahiri and George W. Bush don't agree on much. But al Qaeda's No. 2 leader and the U.S. President are in accord on one thing: Iraq is the central battlefield. This is just one of the many insights into the mind of the terrorist braintrust gleaned from an extraordinary document obtained this summer by U.S. forces in Iraq and released yesterday by the White House. It is a 6,000-word letter from Zawahiri, presumably in hiding in Pakistan, to al Qaeda's commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. We're glad the administration made the decision to declassify it. It goes a long way toward letting Americans see what we are up against in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The letter's full text is up on the Web site of the Director of National Intelligence at www.dni.gov. [Ayman al Zawahiri] Those who want a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will now have to explain why that won't play into the hands -- and plans -- of the enemy. Zawahiri makes it quite clear that al Qaeda's ambitions extend well beyond the borders of any one country. The goal is a fundamentalist Islamic regime that begins in Iraq, extends into the neighboring secular nations of the region, assaults Israel and moves on from there. And yes, he uses the word "caliphate." But let Zawahiri speak for himself. The jihadists, he writes, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal." Plainly said, these boys are in it for the long haul. Just because the U.S. might decide to pull out of Iraq hardly means that al Qaeda will stop trying to kill Americans. Notwithstanding Zawahiri's chilling language, the good news here is that the tone of the correspondence with his mass murder colleague in Iraq often borders on the desperate. Zawahiri hardly sounds like a commander on the brink of victory. He is clearly worried that the jihadists are losing in Iraq. He devotes a large portion of his letter to a critique of Zarqawi's tactics, counseling him to do more to win "public support" among the Iraqi Shiite majority. Don't attack mosques, he advises. Don't target ordinary people. "Many of your Muslim admirers amongst common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shi'a," he writes. Such strikes amount to "action that the masses do not understand or approve." As for the Sunnis, he urges Zarqawi to cast a wider net -- an implicit admission that he's worried about Sunnis who have been showing signs of interest in the democratic political process unfolding there. Afghanistan -- and the Islamic democracy emerging in that nation -- is his worst nightmare. "We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Kandahar alone," he says. "The result was that the Afghan people disengaged themselves from them. Even devout ones took the stance of the spectator and when the invasion came, the emirate collapsed in days, because the people were either passive or hostile." Zawahiri's also not feeling too peachy about his personal situation. He recounts the death of his "favorite" wife and a daughter after the collapse of their house during an apparent American bombing. He admits to a "real danger" from the Pakistani army, which is pursuing al Qaeda in tribal areas. He mourns the capture of al Qaeda big shots, and oh by the way, he asks Zarqawi to send him $100,000. The letter is dated July 9, two days after the London subway bombings, of which there is no mention; this suggests that life in a cave, or whatever redoubt in which he is holed up, doesn't include the basic amenity of daily news access. He asks whether the full text of a speech he had sent to al Jazeera was actually broadcast in June. Amid these lamentations, however, one area emerges about which the terror commander exudes great confidence: the media. The lesson he learned from Vietnam is that "more than half of the battle is taking place on the battlefield of the media." He clearly wants to use the media, in the U.S. and in the Arab world, to induce the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and default a position of strength to al Qaeda. He actually worries about the possibility that Zarqawi will blow victory on the media battlefield: Toward this end, he gently urges Zarqawi to discontinue his habit of beheading hostages, suggesting that perhaps instead he could just shoot them. "We are in a media race for� hearts and minds," he writes. The long Zawahiri letter is a rough roadmap of the strategic vision for al Qaeda's intentions in Iraq and the global jihad. If it has a familiar ring, that's because George Bush has been warning the world about it for several years.

Link to the letter: http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf

Re: Zawahiri's Lament

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka From today's WSJ: Link to the letter: http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf

It's hard to know what to believe

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...tion=cnn_latest

It's fake, manufactured evidence, just like the WMDs claim. But I'm guessing the masses will buy Goverment propoganda once again, like they're used to doing, and not learning from that same repetitive mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's fake, manufactured evidence, just like the WMDs claim. But I'm guessing the masses will buy Goverment propoganda once again, like they're used to doing, and not learning from that same repetitive mistake.

Although I have the same feeling as you - that it might be fake - it's not for certain. It might be for real and it's kinda stupid too say it is not for real, like it is stupid to say it's real for sure. But yeah, no one should take it too serious, US intelligence has been proved wrong before...

"It's hard to know what to believe" - Is more what I feel at this point.

What confuses me is: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html

Why do they offer a "translated" arabic version? Why do they simply not display the orginal letter.

From the arabic translation it looks like the original letter was hand written as not all parts are clear (i.e. ??????)

Although this letter might not be authentic I do believe:
It is not a fabrication by US Intelligence. The community has such a strong loss of credibility it can not risk such a maneouver, and the president would have no interest in allowing such a maneouver if he knows it is false (intelligence of course might go about this without presidential authorithy, but that should have even more dire consequences).


I look forward to reading the letter in its entirety and deciding on this later.


Oh but I did like this part: Made me lol

quote:

Toward this end, he gently urges Zarqawi to discontinue his habit of beheading hostages, suggesting that perhaps instead he could just shoot them. "We are in a media race for� hearts and minds," he writes.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What confuses me is: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html Why do they offer a "translated" arabic version? Why do they simply not display the orginal letter. From the arabic translation it looks like the original letter was hand written as not all parts are clear (i.e. ??????) Although this letter might not be authentic I do believe: It is not a fabrication by US Intelligence. The community has such a strong loss of credibility it can not risk such a maneouver, and the president would have no interest in allowing such a maneouver if he knows it is false (intelligence of course might go about this without presidential authorithy, but that should have even more dire consequences). I look forward to reading the letter in its entirety and deciding on this later. Oh but I did like this part: Made me lol

But then again, the threats of terror along with any other "great news" coming from Iraq have seemingly not deterred this Administration continuing to host staged events:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=298030

Or hype up terror alerts and threats:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...=la-home-nation

In fact, the history involving the timing of this Administration throwing around a terror alert of some sort is more than just a bit uncanny:

quote:

Please, judge for yourself. Number One: May 18th, 2002. The first details of the President�s Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001, are revealed, including its title - �Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.� The same day another memo is discovered - revealing the FBI knew of men with links to Al Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon. Questions about 9/11 Intelligence failures are swirling. May 20th, 2002. Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares another terrorist attack �inevitable.� The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. Number Two: June 6th, 2002. Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley�s testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers. June 10th, 2002. Four days later, speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than a month. Number Three: February 5th, 2003. Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq�s concealment of weapons, including 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the UN are doubtful. Months later, much of the information proves untrue. February 7th, 2003. Two days later, as anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites �credible threats� by Al Qaeda, and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison - who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster - advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack. Number Four: July 23rd, 2003: The White House admits the CIA -- months before the President's State of the Union Address -- expressed "strong doubts" about the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued; it criticizes government at all levels; it reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers; and it concludes that Iraq had no link to Al-Qaeda. 28 pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners. July 29th, 2003. Three days later, amid all of those negative headlines, Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks. Number Five: December 17th, 2003. 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a Federal Appeals Court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation-bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. Weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, announces he will resign his post. December 21st, 2003. Three days later, just before Christmas, Homeland Security again raises the threat level to Orange, claiming �credible intelligence� of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are cancelled after some passenger names purportedly produce matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identify those matched names: one belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year old boy. Number Six: March 30th, 2004. The new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer tells Congress we have still not found any WMD there. And, after weeks of refusing to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice finally relents and agrees to testify. On the 31st: Four Blackwater-USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is widely questioned. April 2nd, 2004. Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains, using fertilizer and fuel bombs - like the one detonated in Oklahoma City - stuffed into satchels or duffel bags. Number Seven: May 16th, 2004. Secretary of State Powell appears on �Meet The Press.� Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the �enormous personal credibility� Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over. Powell finishes his answer, admitting that much of the information he had been given about Weapons of Mass Destruction was �inaccurate and wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.� May 21st, 2004, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison are released. On the 24th - Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party - killing more than 40. Wednesday the 26th. Two days later, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller warn that intelligence from multiple sources, in Ashcroft�s words, �indicates Al-Qaeda�s specific intention to hit the United States hard,� and that �90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.� The color-coded warning system is not raised, and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge does not attend the announcement. Number Eight: July 6th, 2004. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls, and a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign. July 8th, 2004. Two days later, Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about Al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, Junior, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming Presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts. Number Nine: July 29th, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominate the media attention over the ensuing weekend. Monday, August 1st, 2004. The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning - reconnaissance data, left in a home in Iraq - later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out-of-date. Number Ten: Last Thursday. At 10 AM Eastern Time, the President addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again emphasizing the importance of the war on terror and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11. At 3 PM Eastern Time, five hours after the President�s speech has begun, the Associated Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA Leak Grand Jury, and that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted. At 5:17 PM Eastern Time, seven hours after the President�s speech has begun, New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city�s subway system - based on information supplied by the Federal Government. A Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is �of doubtful credibility.� And it later proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days, and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station, WNBC, reports it had the story of the threat days in advance, but was asked by "high ranking federal officials" in New York and Washington to hold off its story. Less than four days after revealing the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Since the period of the threat now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future, we'll slowly be winding down the enhanced security." While news organizations ranging from the New York Post to NBC News quote sources who say there was reason to believe that informant who triggered the warning simply �made it up�, a Senior U.S. Counter-terrorism official tells the New York Times: "There was no there, there." The list of three additional examples follows. Number Eleven: October 22nd, 2004. After weeks of Administration insistence that there are terrorist plans to disrupt the elections, FBI, Law Enforcement, and other U.S. Intelligence agencies report they have found no direct evidence of any plot. More over, they say, a key CIA source who had claimed knowledge of the plot, has been discredited. October 29, 2004. Seven days later - four days before the Presidential election - the first supposedly new, datable tape of Osama Bin Laden since December 2001 is aired on the Al-Jazeera Network. A Bush-Cheney campaign official anonymously tells the New York Daily News that from his campaign�s point of view, the tape is quote �a little gift.� Number Twelve: May 5th, 2005. 88 members of the United States House of Representatives send a letter to President Bush demanding an investigation of the so-called �Downing Street Memo� - a British document which describes purported American desire dating to 2002 to "fix" the evidence to fit the charges against Iraq. In Iraq over the following weekend, car bombings escalate. On the 11th, more than 75 Iraqis are killed in one. May 11th, 2005. Later that day, an instructor and student pilot violate restricted airspace in Washington D.C. It is an event that happens hundreds of times a year, but this time the plane gets to within three miles of the White House. The Capitol is evacuated; Vice President Cheney, the First Lady, and Nancy Reagan are all rushed to secure locations. The President, biking through woods, is not immediately notified. Number Thirteen: June 26th, 2005. A Gallup poll suggests that 61 percent of the American public believes the President does not have a plan in Iraq. On the 28th, Mr. Bush speaks to the nation from Fort Bragg: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won." June 29th 2005. The next day, another private pilot veers into restricted airspace, the Capitol is again evacuated, and this time, so is the President. -- To summarize, coincidences are coincidences. We could probably construct a similar time line of terror events and warnings, and their relationship to - the opening of new Walmarts around the country. Are these coincidences signs that the government�s approach has worked because none of the announced threats ever materialized? Are they signs that the government has not yet mastered how and when to inform the public? Is there, in addition to the "fog of war" a simple, benign, "fog of intelligence�? But, if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country - questions about what is prudence, and what is fear-mongering; questions about which is the threat of death by terror, and which is the terror of threat. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Oh Keith, you show there really is life after ESPN.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But then again, the threats of terror along with any other "great news" coming from Iraq have seemingly not deterred this Administration continuing to host staged events:

I'm sorry, what is Bush trying to "distract" us from now? Katriana and Rita recovery?

quote:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=298030

What Bush is a politican!?!?!? NO!

quote:

Or hype up terror alerts and threats: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...=la-home-nation

Feds played this threat down. It was local officials who played it up.
Amazing how you try and link this anyhow though as some Bush admin failure. And I'm sorry what were the Feds who played down this threat trying to get us distracted from again?

quote:

In fact, the history involving the timing of this Administration throwing around a terror alert of some sort is more than just a bit uncanny:

Pure conjecture. Too laughable to take seriously.
I could similarly do a list oh how "alerts" coincided with the movement of the stars and planets



And as an aside: Even if it is a "distraction" from some other issue does that make it not true?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's fake, manufactured evidence, just like the WMDs claim. But I'm guessing the masses will buy Goverment propoganda once again, like they're used to doing, and not learning from that same repetitive mistake.

does it really matter whether the letter is fake or not? to go through the trouble to fabricate something like this needed for justification of what we see with our own eyes in that country? if you read all 6800 words, it doesn't do any favors for anybody for it to exist. it's an enigma wrapped in no consequence.

BTW when, exactly, do you think the WMD claims were fabricated?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I'm sorry, what is Bush trying to "distract" us from now? Katriana and Rita recovery?

I'm sorry if that's a bit too hard to believe, but perhaps that's not too far of a stretch, especially for the 98% of African Americans who don't think too highly of Bush right now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5101300885.html

No, that Katrina ordeal just turned itself right around for Bush, hasan't it?


But aside from that, I guess nothing really to distract us from, except maybe this:

http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=259 (38% approval)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_poll_dc (39% approval)

Or this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051014...pr_wh/bush_iraq

(psst, reality check:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12384818.htm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle319160.ece
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...ld/12885107.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/i...artner=homepage)


Or this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10...n.ap/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5101301955.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/n...artner=homepage

Or this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=n...3FPOE%3DNEWISVA


Or this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...pGJWG0&refer=us
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...cs/12899972.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fe...bc-us-delay.xml


Or this:

http://www.cnn.com/money/2005/10/14...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Nope, no distractions here.....

quote:

What Bush is a politican!?!?!? NO!

You'll have to excuse me to getting more and more fucking pissed off at my dipshit President continuing to use our military for his bullshit propaganda routine. It's bad enough to have that fucking "Mission Accomplished" debacle, you simply must excuse me if I think it shouldn't happen again. Unless, of course, Bush is either that incompetent or outright too stupid to have an open, candid, unstaged conversation with the men and women fighting that war there on the public stage.

quote:

Feds played this threat down. It was local officials who played it up. Amazing how you try and link this anyhow though as some Bush admin failure. And I'm sorry what were the Feds who played down this threat trying to get us distracted from again?

Hmmm, so I must have been in a strange dreamlike stupor watching Faux News hype this up for at least 2 days straight. But aside from that, it seems you might have skipped over this little tidbit:

quote:

But before the story could be checked out, Department of Homeland Security officials alerted state security directors in a conference call, according to the second federal law enforcement official, who described the call as being unnecessary. That call and other efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to spread the news of the threat allowed it to leak out to the news media, thus forcing New York's hand in going public, the two federal officials said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...=la-home-nation

Now I grant you that this primarily involved the local officials and how they handled it, but please don't try to merely handwave away DHS involvement in the matter either.

And as mentioned previously, this isn't an uncommon scenario, from Olberman's blog by Tom Ridge:

quote:

On May 10th of this year, after his resignation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge looked back on the terror alert level changes, issued on his watch. �More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don�t necessarily put the country on (alert)� there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said �for that?�� http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

quote:

Pure conjecture. Too laughable to take seriously. I could similarly do a list oh how "alerts" coincided with the movement of the stars and planets

I'm sure you could, and you may actually find a pattern of sorts there. But that certainly says nothing about our politics. However, the pattern of mere "coincidences" of terror alerts immediately after incidences which contradict claims of this Administration, make them look downright aweful, or when their polls are tanking are, well, just a tad bit more than coincidental.

Again, I don't mind a little politiking here and there, but the pattern of abuse by fucking with our fears is getting tedious and tiresome. Thankfully the public is also tired of this little boy crying "Wolf" too often.

quote:

And as an aside: Even if it is a "distraction" from some other issue does that make it not true?

I'm afraid you lost me here. What are you referring to here? Are you referring to the letter itself in which the authenticity is being questioned, or are you referring to the bogus terror alerts?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm sorry if that's a bit too hard to believe, but perhaps that's not too far of a stretch, especially for the 98% of African Americans who don't think too highly of Bush right now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5101300885.html No, that Katrina ordeal just turned itself right around for Bush, hasan't it? But aside from that, I guess nothing really to distract us from, except maybe this: http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=259 (38% approval) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_poll_dc (39% approval)

I'm probably mistaken but I coulda sworn Bush isn't running for office after he's done with his presidency in 2008?

quote:

Or this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051014...pr_wh/bush_iraq (psst, reality check: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12384818.htm http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle319160.ece http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...ld/12885107.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/i...artner=homepage) Or this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10...n.ap/index.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5101301955.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/n...artner=homepage Or this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=n...3FPOE%3DNEWISVA Or this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...pGJWG0&refer=us http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...cs/12899972.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fe...bc-us-delay.xml Or this: http://www.cnn.com/money/2005/10/14...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Gee thanks! But I already have a morning paper delivery.
BTW incase you were wondering what else is happening in the world:
www.bbc.co.uk
www.cnn.com
news.yahoo.com
news.google.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.newyorktimes.com

oh and these:
www.haaretz.co.il
www.maariv.co.il
www.wsj.com
www.ft.com

and let us not forget:
www.newyorkpost.com
www.abcnews.com
www.cbsnews.com
www.msbnc.com
www.foxnews.com

and these:
www.news.com
www.reuters.comw
www.usatoday.com
www.wired.com

can't forget these!:
www.sciencenews.org
www.bloomberg.com
www.usnews.com
www.cbc.ca
www.npr.org


and the locals:
www.austin360.com
www.houstonchronicle.com
www.galvestondailynews.com
www.dallasmorningstar.com
www.dallasnews.com

and most importantly:
www.tvguide.com
www.theonion.com
et.tv.yahoo.com


Coincidence?! I think not!

*phew*

quote:

Nope, no distractions here.....

I knew we would agree one of these days!

quote:

You'll have to excuse me to getting more and more fucking pissed off at my dipshit President continuing to use our military for his bullshit propaganda routine.

Ok, fine, your excused.

quote:

Hmmm, so I must have been in a strange dreamlike stupor watching Faux News hype this up for at least 2 days straight. But aside from that, it seems you might have skipped over this little tidbit:

Why you watching fox news?

quote:

I'm sure you could, and you may actually find a pattern of sorts there. But that certainly says nothing about our politics. However, the pattern of mere "coincidences" of terror alerts immediately after incidences which contradict claims of this Administration, make them look downright aweful, or when their polls are tanking are, well, just a tad bit more than coincidental.

There is no pattern connected to politics either. All you have demonstrated is a random walk. I can time all these alerts with hollywood news and come up with stupid theories.

If you would have say a graph of an Bush's approval rating interladden with the public issued terror alerts (orange, green, yellow, etc) it might hint at some relationship... but otherwise, like I said earlier pure conjecture.

quote:

Again, I don't mind a little politiking here and there, but the pattern of abuse by fucking with our fears is getting tedious and tiresome. Thankfully the public is also tired of this little boy crying "Wolf" too often.

You have to learn when to take them seriously

quote:

I'm afraid you lost me here. What are you referring to here? Are you referring to the letter itself in which the authenticity is being questioned, or are you referring to the bogus terror alerts?

To the letter. (that is what this thread is about afterall no?)

Hey Shakka,

Do you have a subscription to the WSJ online?
I only get the hard-copy. There was a great piece in the same place as the above opinion piece in today's Friday paper about the French.

Can you post it in another thread for me? I think some guys would find it interesting here too.. would like to debate about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I'm probably mistaken but I coulda sworn Bush isn't running for office after he's done with his presidency in 2008?

Well now if we're merely talking about Bush himself, you'd be quite right in your implication. However I'm not merely referring to Bush himself, but his entire party in charge of our government as well as their hopes of maintaining that power.

But if we are to assume what you are implying, is that to say that anything Bush does is pretty much damn the public opinion on the matter, or do you think maybe, just maybe he might want to have a descent legacy of some sort on his own? Is it that much of a stretch to think he wants to walk away with an Oscar trophy in his hand while crying, "They love me, they really really love me!!!"

quote:

Gee thanks! But I already have a morning paper delivery. BTW incase you were wondering what else is happening in the world: www.bbc.co.uk www.cnn.com news.yahoo.com news.google.com www.washingtonpost.com www.newyorktimes.com oh and these: www.haaretz.co.il www.maariv.co.il www.wsj.com www.ft.com and let us not forget: www.newyorkpost.com www.abcnews.com www.cbsnews.com www.msbnc.com www.foxnews.com and these: www.news.com www.reuters.comw www.usatoday.com www.wired.com can't forget these!: www.sciencenews.org www.bloomberg.com www.usnews.com www.cbc.ca www.npr.org and the locals: www.austin360.com www.houstonchronicle.com www.galvestondailynews.com www.dallasmorningstar.com www.dallasnews.com and most importantly: www.tvguide.com www.theonion.com et.tv.yahoo.com

Well I'm glad you read too, thank goodness. Now could you perhaps answer my question as to the thought of your party sucking nutsack right now, and that perhaps a healthy wag the dog every now and then might not be a mere "coincidence"?

quote:

Coincidence?! I think not! *phew*

Of course not! Who would have their darn tin foil hats on so tightly these days?

(psst - according to the polls, more tend not to believe Bush nowadays: http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=259).

quote:

Ok, fine, your excused.

Well thanks. I really had to clear the slight barf in my mouth. So you still sittin' at the table listenin' intently to the propaganda speeches given?

Oh yeah, speaking of propaganda stuff, this looks fun for Bush:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../w085702D00.DTL

quote:

Why you watching fox news?

Why does Shakka listen to Randi Rhodes?

Because I do my best not just to listen to how liberals interpret Right Wing news, but to listen to it myself from time to time as well. Keeps me more round, I s'pose.

quote:

There is no pattern connected to politics either. All you have demonstrated is a random walk. I can time all these alerts with hollywood news and come up with stupid theories. If you would have say a graph of an Bush's approval rating interladden with the public issued terror alerts (orange, green, yellow, etc) it might hint at some relationship... but otherwise, like I said earlier pure conjecture.

And how do you like that cooked?:

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2004/...error-warnings/

quote:

You have to learn when to take them seriously

Who, the public? I guess I always take their opinions seriously, whether I agree with them or not. How 'bout you?

quote:

To the letter. (that is what this thread is about afterall no?)

It looks pretty suspicious to be true. Juan Cole, your favorite anti-war professor also makes some pretty good points on the authenticity in addition to what was already posted:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/zaw...awi-shiite.html

Just smells kinda funny, real funny.....

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why does Shakka listen to Randi Rhodes?

bitch.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka bitch.

Teehee . Sorry.

Oh, more stuff on the letter:

quote:

US cannot explain suspicious Zawahri letter passage By David Morgan Fri Oct 14, 7:42 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence officials who released a letter purporting to be from an al Qaeda leader to Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this week said on Friday they could not account for a passage that has raised doubts about the document's authenticity. The July 9 dated letter, which U.S. officials say was written by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, appears near its close to urge the Iraq insurgent leader to send greetings to himself if visiting the Iraqi city of Falluja. "My greetings to all the loved ones and please give me news of Karem and the rest of the folks I know," says an unedited English translation posted at www.dni.gov, the office Web site of U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte. "And especially, by God, if by chance you're going to Falluja, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," it states. Zarqawi is the Jordanian-born leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, the most prominent segment of the deadly Iraq insurgency. His organisation has said the letter is a fabrication. A spokesman for Negroponte, who is the U.S. director of national intelligence, or DNI, acknowledged the greetings passage was confusing but said the intelligence community was confident the letter was addressed to Zarqawi by Zawahri. "We don't know what to make of it (the passage). It's unclear," the Negroponte spokesman said. "But we are absolutely confident that it was intended for Mr. Zarqawi, based on a review by multiple agencies over a protracted period of time." U.S. officials have refused to disclose details of where, when or how authorities came by the letter, or what methods have been used to determine its authenticity. Some experts contend the strange passage undermines the letter's credibility. "This would appear to be conclusive evidence that the DNI was mistaken, and that the letter was written to someone other than Zarqawi," Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists said on on Friday in his e-mail intelligence newsletter, "Secrecy News." Aftergood cited an article in the online Slate magazine that called attention to the passage as well as the fact the letter was signed with the name, Abu Muhammad. Experts have already said the letter depicts Zawahri as making unrealistic admissions involving al Qaeda's need for money, the Pakistan army's hunt for al Qaeda leaders and the May capture of al Qaeda member Abu Faraj al Liby. The greetings passage gained little noticed from initial news coverage of the letter's release, which came days before this weekend's constitutional referendum in Iraq. News coverage concentrated instead on language that suggested rifts between al Qaeda militants, including Zawahri's advice that insurgents avoid the unpopular killing of civilians and begin seeking public support for an Islamic state. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014...q_usa_letter_dc

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.