Ali Fadhil has some good comments on Free Iraqi blog:
Al Zawahiri threats
I think the latest message from Alqaeda that was sent through Ayman Al Zawahiri did not carry anything that new to us but it did confirm, in my opinion, what many of us believed regarding the relation between terrorism and the war in Iraq.
I have expressed my opinion before that if the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror as some westerns think then why do we have almost all the terrorists in the world racing each other to achieve "martyrdom" in our land? Why not Afghanistan, Israel or their ultimate enemies; the west and America in particular? Sure they have attacked Europe but is that the best they can do there? I really doubt it. The terrorists have shown us that they have people almost everywhere in the world that are waiting for an order to blow themselves up in a bus, a train or a street crowded with civilians. So why are they putting most of their resources in Iraq instead of the west?
It's amazing how the terrorists themselves keep showing us in words and actions how vital the war in Iraq is for them and at the same time we have westerns and Americans saying that this war has nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that it's only increasing the danger of terrorism!
Another thing that this message and previous ones show is what other bloggers have already noted in that the Jihadis are following the western media and using the arguments of the far left to feed the fears of westerns and Americans, like the note about Vietnam and the use of the "no blood for oil". That's why I think that people like George Galloway and Michael Moor are doing a great service to the terrorists.
Another point that I have argued about before and that seems to be showing clearer in this message is that Al Qaeda cannot attack American soil, not in the short term at least and not until the fate of Iraq is sealed beyond doubt as far as the terrorists and their supporters are concerned.
It's interesting to see how bold Al Zawahiri was in threatening to launch more attacks against London but settled with the threat of killing more American soldiers in Iraq when talking about America. He has lost the initiative when it comes to attacking America in America so he's looking for the "next best thing", a big target that he still can safely attack without having to worry about a massive counter attack on all his bases and supportive regimes. He knows very well that if he attacks America the tyrannies that help him and his organization in attacking Iraq would not only stop offering him any help but will also do all they can to save their necks, like turning in any Al Qaeda men they have on their lands or if they can't then they would cooperate fully with the US in security field giving her access to all the info they have on Al Qaeda which I guess they have a lot to tell after their lands where used as a passage for the terrorists to Iraq with them turning a blind eye or even facilitating the process.
I expect that no big or small attacks on America would happen at all, not within a year at least but I think the UK is still a target for some attacks. Those attacks would most likely be of limited nature too because the terrorists have seen the reaction the London attacks have left and they know it would be safer for them to avoid pushing things too far.
If Al Qaeda is free to attack the US it would've been done long time ago and more than once. They have the will, the men, the money and the communications with many radical Islamic groups inside the US. Moreover the simplicity of the bombs they used in London tells us that they don't even need to smuggle explosives or buy them from inside the US as they can use some of their followers there to manufacture them at home. So I think the only logical explanation for their refraining from launching such attacks is that they're not allowed to.
Large organizations such as Al Qaeda while can operate in secret, they still in order to make their presence noticeable and to maintain their universal operations would need the support of some government and intelligence agencies. We all know that had Iraq's neighbors been really cooperative it would be very difficult for Al Qaeda to maintain their efforts in the same magnitude or even closer. And it would be naive to think that such police states know nothing about fighters and cars loaded with bombs that travel thousands of miles and cross their lands to reach Iraq. Now most of the totalitarian regimes in the region are not friends with the terrorists and in fact terrorists have attacked those regimes occasionally while using their lands as a passage, but the bigger cause has forced them to cooperate in Iraq and form a sort of an unwritten contract that regulates this cooperation.
I say they know, they're facilitating it but they still want it to be controlled, i.e. they want to make sure that the people they're supporting -or even not doing anything against them- are not going to use this support to attack America because that would bring their end, and very fast. |
