You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Terror Networks
Ayman Mocks Bush
2007-01-23
Al-Qaida's deputy leader mocked President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, challenging him to send "the entire army" and vowing insurgents will defeat them, according to a new videotape released Monday by a U.S. group that tracks al-Qaida messages. The Washington-based SITE Institute said it had intercepted the video from Ayman al-Zawahri, which had not yet been posted on Islamic militant Web sites, where his messages are usually posted. SITE did not elaborate on how it received the message.

Al-Zawahri said the U.S. strategy for Iraq, outlined by Bush in a Jan. 9 speech, was doomed to fail. "I ask him, why send 20,000 (troops) only - why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?" said al-Zawahri in the footage released by SITE, which assesses and analyzes intelligence related to terrorism. "So send your entire army to be annihilated at the hands of the mujahideen (holy warriors) to free the world from your evil, because Iraq, land of the Caliphate and Jihad, is able to bury ten armies like yours, with Allah's help and power."

The video showed al-Zawahri in a full gray beard and wearing a white turban, in front of a black backdrop. The message was the first reaction from al-Qaida's leadership to the new Iraq strategy. The U.S. has said the extra troops aim to crack down on al-Qaida fighters and other Sunni Arab insurgents in Iraq, as well as Shiite militiamen blamed in the country's spiraling sectarian violence.
Posted by:Fred

#23  Camel sperm stain. The diaper normally covers it up.
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-01-23 17:23  

#22  Is the thing on his forehead where the bullitt went in or came out?

That "thing" on his forehead is his Piety Callous™!

Shame on you Icerigger! What a terrible (snicker) thing to say!
Posted by: Chuck Darwin   2007-01-23 22:58  

#21  
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-01-23 17:23  

#20  Is the thing on his forehead where the bullitt went in or came out?
Posted by: CB   2007-01-23 17:06  

#19  So, he's running for the Demonratic nomination?

He's already got a lock on Oregon, then.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-01-23 16:53  

#18  Sounds like the feels the need to rally his chumps because so many of them are getting snuffed. If he can "bury ten armies" like ours then why hasn't he even managed to bury the first one yet? Why does he target innocent civilians while avoiding the Americans? Why does he hide in Pakistan while his jihadis die at the hands of Bush's army? Trash talk. That's all.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-01-23 14:58  

#17  #8 - the Viet Nam war was lost in 1975 when the US Congress blocked the sending of aid to our allies in South Viet Nam when the North send a massive conventional invasion force south.
Seeing people shot to death on TV horrifies the children.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-23 14:52  

#16  Someone needs to explain to Ayman that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2007-01-23 14:21  

#15  Ayman Mocks Bush from his hidey hole under a bed somewhere in Pakistan.

"Never interrupt the enemy when he is in the process of making a mistake." Does Zawahri going out of his way to interrupt mean the new plans might be hitting closer to the mark?
Posted by: gorb   2007-01-23 14:00  

#14  Very well said, JFM. Many here may recall my whining over the past two years about how we have utterly failed to participate in the discussion of Geneva, and how in fact the US was UPHOLDING the Conventions, not skirting them or carving out exceptions for ourselves, and further that the ones damaging the Conventions were the war criminals (our enemies) AND states/organizations advocating the application of Geneva rules to non-compliant AQ combatants.

I was actually in a position to inquire at State WTF was going on with this topic, and while some there were as clear-headed and upset as we are, they didn't think that meaningful action was in the offing. There was/is a debate about whether to convene another convention to update the rules in the post-9/11 era. Those agin' fear, probably with some cause, that the world is so morally upside-down and anti-US right now that the obvious amendments to account for AQ-type issues would be blocked by otherwise sensible countries (or should that be "formerly otherwise sensible countries"?).

Posted by: Verlaine   2007-01-23 12:20  

#13  That brain tumor getting any bigger?
Posted by: tu3031   2007-01-23 10:29  

#12  So, he's running for the Demonratic nomination?
Posted by: Jackal   2007-01-23 09:41  

#11  He looks like a varmint... he even smells like a varmint.
Posted by: eLarson   2007-01-23 09:34  

#10  nice forehead
Posted by: Worf   2007-01-23 07:17  

#9  Mocking Bush is MY job. Ayman is going to pay for that. It's like copyright infringement or something. Where's my lawyer?
Posted by: M_Dowd_NYT   2007-01-23 07:12  

#8  To continue on the sme theme, the Vienam war was lost the day a South Vietnames colonel shot a captured VietCong on the head in front of the cameras. It was lost because then teh American public thought South Vietnam was as bad as North Vietnam so tehre was no sense in continuing the war. It was lost because nobody had explained to them that the Vietcong was an unlawful combattant and, in this particular case, had been part of a unit who had killed in cold blood the women and children of South Vietnamese officers so according to teh lmaws of war tehre were not one but two motives for summary execution. But we failed to tell that to the public and the home front crumbled.
Posted by: JFM   2007-01-23 05:18  

#7  Nope. War is continuation of politics by other means so Army must fight with the ROE required to reach the politic goals searched for.

However, you also hacve to be present in the propaganda front, as this has an influence on the ROE that you can assign to the troops. For instance, decades of neglect in this front, have alowed teh ennemeies of teh West, mainly the Communists, to set into the public's mind that we are supposed to treat unlawful combattants as if they were uniformed, Geneva compliant ones (1). Result uis that now shooting captutred guerrillas has an unacceptable political, cost

(1) We should have tiold, repetaed and re-repeated that Geneva conventions are based on the idea that in order to have factions respecting them they should get no advantage on violating them. For that reason once you violate them the enemy is no longer restrained by them. That this provision is essential for making war less cruel and that allowing factions violate them wiyth impunity means encouraging war crimes. But now we will need years, perhaps more, in debrainwashing people used to western armies not shooting captured non-uniformed guerrillas.
Posted by: JFM   2007-01-23 04:36  

#6  It is the stupidity of American politicians who send the nation's brave and young to fight and die with their hands tied. You never ask your army to kiss the ass of the enemy. You tell your army to do whatever they need to do and give them all the destructive power, including use of nuclear bombs, to do the winning without interference from the politicians. It is not the job of the army to please the stupidity. The job of the politicians is to calm the waters after the army finished the job they were asked to do. I do not think that the majority of Americans are against sending their loved spouse, sons and daughters to fight in Iraq, they are against sending their young and the braves to die in a stupid war with their hands tied behind. Give them the freedom to do whatever they have to do, never ask your army to kiss the ass of the enemy and give them all the destructive power you have for them to use without asking a question. The stupid politicians of our nation have no clue what to do instead the same stupid send thousands of our young and braves to die in a mission which is not for the army to do.
Posted by: Annon   2007-01-23 03:57  

#5  For one so versed in hyperbole, old Ayman doesn't get out of his cave much.
Posted by: Howard UK   2007-01-23 03:31  

#4  Geez, Blind, congrats on getting something perfectly 100% backwards. If Coalition and govt. forces are used aggressively, it will directly diminish the utility, power, and problem of militias. And "islamist" motivation isn't sufficient to provide more than minor formations on either side of the sectarian divide.
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-01-23 01:20  

#3  Oh, goody. The expert from Oregon has spoken.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-01-23 01:14  

#2  Ah, so the real problem is the majority of American citizens. Check back with me in a year, after the "surge" fails to do anything but send thousands more into the arms of the Islamist militas.
Posted by: NotBlind   2007-01-23 01:05  

#1  At last check, or since yestiddy, most civilian casualties in Iraq [NLT 80%] are still Muslim-on-Muslim. GEORGE WILL > by his quantitative calculations, the "troop surge" is about the approximate level needed for US milfors to stay and exert control in Iraq. IOW, THE LOCAL INSURGENCY/SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IS DOING EVERYTHING EXCEPT DE FACTO THREATENING US-ALLIED CONTROL OF IRAQ. ANTI-DUBYA DEMOCRATS=CRITICS INSIDE AMER + US NPE ARE THE TRUE THREAT.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-23 00:56  

00:00