Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (124631)	2/11/2004 11:34:10 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<But--and let me emphasize that this is just my suspicion here--it strains credulity that an ally of Al Qaeda would go all-out to note the growing strength of the U.S. in Iraq; further note that jihadists are being "suffocat[ed]"; believe that the June 30 handover of power would spoil all hope of holy war; and lament somewhat ostentatiously--or, to use the Times's words, "with a rhetorical flourish"--that "we will have no pretexts" to mount attacks when "the sons of this land will be the authority" in "the democracy" awaiting Iraq at the end of June.>>> Suffucation seems to be good word for it. Al Queada funds from SA being cut off, whatever Iraqis that may possibly have sent them money will have little to give. Difficuties in getting useful arms or storing them in those Afghan mountains. And the Coalition getting stronger with the addition of foreign help and newly trained Iraqi military and police. Big problems in sending terrorists over here with fake passports or bomb materials. And whoever provided the fake papers will be sought out because we are now in the area, just next door, ready to hunt. There are ways to minimize the effectiveness of car bombs, truck bombs, and IED's- just need time to work out feasible ways. Better barricades, more distant check points, controlled ingress/egress for vehicles. etc Sig@squeezeplay.org

To: Sam who wrote (124631)	2/12/2004 12:01:05 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

While noting that none of us is in position to really judge the intelligence credibility of this memo (which would require intimate familiarity with Zarqawi, Al Qaeda methods, the Kurdish sources, etc.), I must say that Ackerman's doubts seem weakly reasoned to me. Zarqawi is appealing for help from guys whom he is affiliated with, but who don't work for him. We know that Al Qaeda is more like a series of franchises than a top down organization. So the one point I agree with Ackerman on is that it's a question how closely affiliated Zarqawi is with bin Laden. From this memo, it sounds like bin Laden's boys don't owe him more men and may have their own problems. What would be more natural in that case than emphasizing that he really, really needs help or the Cause may fail? After all, one of bin Laden's great jihadist innovations was to attempt to bridge the Sunni Islamist-Shia Islamist divide. This point seems risible to me. Where is the contradiction with reaching out with alliances to Hizbullah on one hand and trying to kill Ayatollah Sistani on the other? Politics makes strange bedfellows, always has. These are alliances of convenience. It seems particularly ludicrous to doubt that the jihadists in Iraq are trying to foment a civil war when they have already been bombing the Shi'a left, right and center. A few months ago they tried to blow up the Shrine of Ali, the holiest mosque in Shi'a Islam. They are clearly trying to ignite civil strife, because chaos in Iraq benefits them, just as order benefits us. That much is obvious. One other possibility that Ackerman does not consider is that the memo accurately reflects Zarqawi's thinking, but Osama bin Laden's organization does not agree with the proposal.