Thursday, July 19, 2007
Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is fictional
For a while now, a few bloggers have thought it awfully damned suspicious that most of the mainstream media suddenly started to refer to the insurgency in Iraq as "Al Qaeda." Just as suspicious was the appearance of a splinter group within Iraq calling itself "Al Qaeda," even though it appears to have questionable ties to the group run by Osama Bin Laden.
And what of Bin Laden himself? Quite a few people have raised questions about the authenticity of his videos and taped statements. We've also seen questions raised about Zarqawi and other jihadists.
Now we have this astonishing story from the International Herald Tribune:
And what of Bin Laden himself? Quite a few people have raised questions about the authenticity of his videos and taped statements. We've also seen questions raised about Zarqawi and other jihadists.
Now we have this astonishing story from the International Herald Tribune:
For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.
As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.
On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi's ability to escape attack: He never existed.
Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.
The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and a Middle East expert, said that experts had long wondered whether Baghdadi actually existed. "There has been a question mark about this," he said.I think there's more here than we've been told. Certainly more than one side can play this "fake tape" game? Would not an Iraqi and an Egyptian have distinguishable accents? Why did the Iraqis claim to have killed him? (Al Qaeda leaders tend to die several times.) Wasn't the sudden appearance of an Al Qaeda leader in Iraq awfully conveeeeeenient?
Nonetheless, Riedel suggested that the disclosures made Wednesday might not be the final word on Baghdadi and the leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Even Mashadani's assertions, Riedel said, might be a cover story to protect a leader who does in fact exist.
"First, they say we have killed him," Riedel said, referring to the statements by some Iraqi government officials. "Then we heard him after his death and now they are saying he never existed. That suggests that our intelligence on Al Qaeda in Iraq is not what we want it to be."
Well, I had just assumed…
But this story seems as fictional as "Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi," himself.
Most plausible to me is that the fallacy of the existence of this "leader" was on the way to being blown, which could in turn have blown the similarly vaporous character of his so-called "organization". Had these issues been raised in the wrong context by the wrong people, it risked having some MSM journalist accidentally asking some really important and inconvenient questions.
So, Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi's creators get out in front of the story before it can be verified.
In the process, they and blame the creation of this legend on another imaginary organization that also happens to carry the name "Al Qaeda" identifying the motive as an effort to mask a false fact from the general public which, if "known" might serve to legitimize American military intervention in the region.
The actual fact that such justification would perfectly suit the sole source of all of the "information" contained in this release is only a pleasant coincidence.
Clearly nothing should be read into that, because these are honorable men who would never lie about such a critical issue.
I am so glad we finally got a report on all of this we can trust, because it came from an AMERICAN Military spokesman.
I will finally rest easy...
But this story seems as fictional as "Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi," himself.
Most plausible to me is that the fallacy of the existence of this "leader" was on the way to being blown, which could in turn have blown the similarly vaporous character of his so-called "organization". Had these issues been raised in the wrong context by the wrong people, it risked having some MSM journalist accidentally asking some really important and inconvenient questions.
So, Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi's creators get out in front of the story before it can be verified.
In the process, they and blame the creation of this legend on another imaginary organization that also happens to carry the name "Al Qaeda" identifying the motive as an effort to mask a false fact from the general public which, if "known" might serve to legitimize American military intervention in the region.
The actual fact that such justification would perfectly suit the sole source of all of the "information" contained in this release is only a pleasant coincidence.
Clearly nothing should be read into that, because these are honorable men who would never lie about such a critical issue.
I am so glad we finally got a report on all of this we can trust, because it came from an AMERICAN Military spokesman.
I will finally rest easy...
Al Zarqawi = [the man] from Zarqa
Al Baghdadi = [the man] from Baghdad
Al Masri = [the man] from Egypt
are/were these meant as their real surnames? or noms the plume? ('the scarlet pimpernel has struck the infidel americans.')
So, are these names believable for native arabic speakers? I wonder...
Al Baghdadi = [the man] from Baghdad
Al Masri = [the man] from Egypt
are/were these meant as their real surnames? or noms the plume? ('the scarlet pimpernel has struck the infidel americans.')
So, are these names believable for native arabic speakers? I wonder...
Very funny. The Pentagon is now trying to step up to the plate and tell us what we knew all along... that they have been playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with their terrorist of the week.
Yank some angry clown off the street. Call him terrorist #1 and there you have it. More excuses to keep blowing money in Iraq.
Al-Queda in Iraq = Pissed off Arabs who wonder why we are attacking them rather than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia where the real terrorists are hiding. Of course we can't get to those countries because their leaders are just as corrupt as ours and are likely blackmailing us with their nukes.
What a lovely clusterfuck we're stuck in there in Iraq.
Yank some angry clown off the street. Call him terrorist #1 and there you have it. More excuses to keep blowing money in Iraq.
Al-Queda in Iraq = Pissed off Arabs who wonder why we are attacking them rather than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia where the real terrorists are hiding. Of course we can't get to those countries because their leaders are just as corrupt as ours and are likely blackmailing us with their nukes.
What a lovely clusterfuck we're stuck in there in Iraq.
"al-Qaeda" is fictional, period, not just in Iraq. It is not a real organization and it is not a term that any Muslims use to refer to themselves. "al-Qaeda" means "the base" in Arabic and refers to the database of ex-mujahideen fighters kept by US and British intelligence. Over time, the term has been transformed into the name of a fictitious terrorist organization whose alleged actions can be used to justify neoconservative foreign policy.
Time to stop pointing out the individual lies and start calling bullshit on the whole thing, if you ask me.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Time to stop pointing out the individual lies and start calling bullshit on the whole thing, if you ask me.
