I've read the reported translation of a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If the letter is real and if the translation is accurate, people who are against what is happening in Iraq for noble reasons, need to rethink their position.
Some things that caught my attention:
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
...
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
...
And it's very important that you allow me to elaborate a little here on this issue of popular support. Let's say:
(1) If we are in agreement that the victory of Islam and the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet will not be achieved except through jihad against the apostate rulers and their removal, then this goal will not be accomplished by the mujahed movement while it is cut off from public support, even if the Jihadist movement pursues the method of sudden overthrow. This is because such an overthrow would not take place without some minimum of popular support and some condition of public discontent which offers the mujahed movement what it needs in terms of capabilities in the quickest fashion. Additionally, if the Jihadist movement were obliged to pursue other methods, such as a popular war of jihad or a popular intifadah, then popular support would be a decisive factor between victory and defeat.
(2) In the absence of this popular support, the Islamic mujahed movement would be crushed in the shadows, far from the masses who are distracted or fearful, and the struggle between the Jihadist elite and the arrogant authorities would be confined to prison dungeons far from the public and the light of day. This is precisely what the secular, apostate forces that are controlling our countries are striving for. These forces don't desire to wipe out the mujahed Islamic movement, rather they are stealthily striving to separate it from the misguided or frightened Muslim masses. Therefore, our planning must strive to involve the Muslim masses in the battle, and to bring the mujahed movement to the masses and not conduct the struggle far from them.
(3) The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
...
We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Qandahar alone. They did not have any representation for the Afghan people in their ruling regime, so 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 amirate collapsed in days, because the people were either passive or hostile. Even the students themselves had a stronger affiliation to their tribes and their villages than their affiliation to the Islamic amirate or the Taliban movement or the responsible party in charge of each one of them in his place. Each of them retreated to his village and his tribe, where his affiliation was stronger!!
...
Indeed, questions will circulate among mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time. Is it something that is unavoidable? Or, is it something can be put off until the force of the mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger? And if some of the operations were necessary for self-defense, were all of the operations necessary? Or, were there some operations that weren't called for? And is the opening of another front now in addition to the front against the Americans and the government a wise decision? Or, does this conflict with the Shia lift the burden from the Americans by diverting the mujahedeen to the Shia, while the Americans continue to control matters from afar? And if the attacks on Shia leaders were necessary to put a stop to their plans, then why were there attacks on ordinary Shia? Won't this lead to reinforcing false ideas in their minds, even as it is incumbent on us to preach the call of Islam to them and explain and communicate to guide them to the truth? And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? And what loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners - many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries - in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?
...
Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.
And your response, while true, might be: Why shouldn't we sow terror in the hearts of the Crusaders and their helpers? And isn't the destruction of the villages and the cities on the heads of their inhabitants more cruel than slaughtering? And aren't the cluster bombs and the seven ton bombs and the depleted uranium bombs crueler than slaughtering? And isn't killing by torture crueler than slaughtering? And isn't violating the honor of men and women more painful and more destructive than slaughtering?
All of these questions and more might be asked, and you are justified. However this does not change the reality at all, which is that the general opinion of our supporter does not comprehend that, and that this general opinion falls under a campaign by the malicious, perfidious, and fallacious campaign by the deceptive and fabricated media. And we would spare the people from the effect of questions about the usefulness of our actions in the hearts and minds of the general opinion that is essentially sympathetic to us.
This letter indicates that the terrorists are aware of internal and external politics and public opinion. This is eye opening.
But only now do you believe that these terrorists are rational political actors?
No.
There are commentators who claim that the terrorists only care about advancing their cause at any expense and don't care about who gets hurt. That idea is trashed if this letter is authentic and if the translation is accurate.
my man, that is an absurd position to take - unless you also grant that any people or nation who become aware of another people or nation's grand designs have a right to launch a unilateral attack. if this is fodder for cosigning the attack in iraq, then what license has been granted to africa and asia in combatting the imperial designs of the west? after all, what are you scared of?
Posted by: Temple3 at October 15, 2005 09:29 PMunless you also grant that any people or nation who become aware of another people or nation's grand designs have a right to launch a unilateral attack.
You took what I wrote and assumed a position that I don't have.
I wasn't commenting on the "right" or "wrong" of the attack. I was commenting on the letter itself and what it may mean.
On the attack itself, I think the Bush administration lied about the reasons for the attack.
If I remember correctly, the strong rhetoric against Iraq picked up in intensity after Saadam came out and said that he was giving money to the families of terrorists who killed themselves when attacking Israelis in Israel. To me, that was the reason the Bush administration attacked.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 16, 2005 09:15 AMokay - without putting words in your mouth - i'll take it back to the beginning.
what do people who are opposed to the actions in Iraq need to rethink? please don't tell me it is simply that this letter reflects cognition and choice. you seldom say much - you usually just post and leave it up to us to figure it out. in that respect, it doesn't matter that you don't hold the position i rejection in my last post. if custom holds, you won't state your position. nonetheless, based on what you've written above, i gathered that your call to rethinking oppositional positions was based on the implications you selected to post from the letter. there is considerably more to the letter - but the implications of what you selected do not directly address israel (to the exclusion of other co-conspirators in the West).
"I wasn't commenting on the "right" or "wrong" of the attack. I was commenting on the letter itself and what it may mean."
what might the letter mean?
Posted by: Temple3 at October 16, 2005 07:50 PMwhat do people who are opposed to the actions in Iraq need to rethink?
That there might be some correct supposition coming from the Bush administration concerning terrorists wanting to set up a Muslim outpost vs. "defeding" Islam.
if custom holds, you won't state your position.
I find that comment funny.
but the implications of what you selected do not directly address israel
True. I just stated my reason why I think the administration decided to attack Iraq. It wasn't about oil nor was it about weapons of mass destruction. It was about the defense of Israel. If it was in the open, then I'd have no problem because the people of the U.S. could "discuss" the situation on its merits. Instead, we have, IMO, a bogus ass discussion concerning WOMD and the war on terrorism.
what might the letter mean?
That for those who think if we pull out it would be over, they are sadly mistaken.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 16, 2005 08:54 PMthank you.
Posted by: Temple3 at October 16, 2005 11:08 PM
Let me get this straight. Terrorists were originally recruited by American forces to get the Russians out of Afghanistan, presumably for global political reasons. They have established covert relationships with governments across the planet, presumably for global political reasons.
But only now do you believe that these terrorists are rational political actors?
Posted by: Lester Spence at October 15, 2005 04:47 PM