.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

The Zawahri Letter

I've just read the intercepted Letter that Al Zawahri sent Zarqawi, or at least the full translation to it. Whoa. It gives you a glimpse into the mind of Al Qaeda #2 man, and he is not stupid that one. He maybe a crazy fanatic, but he is a very smart one at that. Here are the moneyshots: 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? Ehh, sorry, but nope. Violating someone's honor is not more painful or destructive then getting slaughterd. I got that on good authority. It might suck, or make you feel like shit, but it's definitely not worse then getting slaughetrd. 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. Nice. However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives by bullet . That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don't need this. LOOL. Sorry, I shouldn't be laughing, but LOL. Don't sluaghter them in front of video cameras, kill them with a bullet away from cameras. This way we don't have to answer questions on why the hell we are so crazy or ruthless. It would be, ehh, a distraction to our Jihad. The letter also advises him on not declaring the war he is waging on the Shia, because that might piss off Iran and it's foolish to get them mad when the Sunnis and the Shia have a common enemy in the US. People of discernment and knowledge among Muslims know the extent of danger to Islam of the Twelve'er school of Shiism. It is a religious school based on excess and falsehood whose function is to accuse the companions of Muhammad { of heresy in a campaign against Islam, in order to free the way for a group of those who call for a dialogue in the name of the hidden mahdi who is in control of existence and infallible in what he does. Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders. The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later. This is the judgment of history, and these are the fruits to be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnis.These are clear, well-known matters to anyone with a knowledge of history, the ideologies, and the politics of states. We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue. It also says that while the Shia are infidels and should be killed, one shouldn't announce it, and should wait till the US is out to wage that war and tsab them in the back. In a funny way, one could imagine that if they manage to pull what they want in the region, topple the governments of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq and create a super Sunni Caliphate state, that they would start a war with Iran sooner or later. So in essence, here are the lessons: 1) Don't kill hostages in front of cameras. It alienates your supporters when they see you in action. Privacy is a good thing when you are slaughtering inocent people like sheep. 2) Don't blow up Mosques. Even Shia ones. The majority of the ignorant idiots who support us don't know the difference between Sunis and Shias and this might turn them off. Bad for Business. 3) Don't announce your hatred to the Shia out loud, they are currently helping you kill the infidels. Wait till the Infidels are out and then kill them. In the meantime, just keep a low profile on the killing of Shia front. It's pissing Iran off and we need their help for now. Unbelieveable. Update: Nadz, another member of the Middle-East Zionist Neocon conspiracy, has intercepted-with the help of Halliburton- the IM conversation between Zawahri and Zarqawi (or should I say Zawahiri7 and ZarqaGuy123?) , and has the full transcript on her latest post. You have to check it out.


At 10/12/2005 03:22:00 AM, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"And isn't the destruction of the villages and the cities on the heads of their inhabitants more cruel than slaughtering?"

Do Al-Qaeda not think that maybe Iraqis could notice that the Americans do not actually destroy villages and cities that much?

Anyway, if the Shi'ites are not utterly stupid, they should now know the difference between the good Muslims and the forces of Satan.

The forces of Satan, evil though they may be, don't want the Shi'ites dead.

At 10/12/2005 08:22:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oil fueds. Ethnic strife. Bad neighbors. Islam.

There is so many pieces to the puzzle of a peaceful Iraq and Middleeast, I really doubt the occupation authorities or Iraqis themselves will put together a safe country. I think you're still optimistic about Iraq, Sam, and nothing is clear. But I wish the US would have used this mountain of money to unshackle us to oil and begun isolating ourselves from the Islamic world and if they want to go into the future with Usama or be critical of their religion it would be their fate and not ours. It's not like we don't have problems now and unforeseen that we have to set on this Quioxitic "crusade" to democratize Islamic society when we won't even admit to ourselves that Sharia, Quran and practically all of Islamic history rejects it.

At 10/12/2005 10:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are a fool to think that we could ever isolate ourselves from another part of the world. That tactic worked really well in the 1920's, didn't it? You are so wrong on so many levels. Freedom from oil is atleast a century away even if it had been started on the first day of the President's first term. Nice idea, but like alot of liberal ideals, not really practical right now. The WOT can be won, but it isn't a microwave or a movie and over in minutes. Get used to it and toughen up!

I really hope that the average person in the ME can see these people for who they are, they are the army of Satan, not the allied or Iraqi forces.

"The forces of Satan, evil though they may be, don't want the Shi'ites dead."
If you read the letter, that answer would be that they do want the Shia dead but not yet. They still are useful to their cause, when they are no longer useful then they will be the enemy.

At 10/13/2005 02:59:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

extremely funny

At 10/13/2005 05:36:00 AM, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"If you read the letter, that answer would be that they do want the Shia dead but not yet. They still are useful to their cause, when they are no longer useful then they will be the enemy."

I was talking about the Americans, not Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda are the good Muslims.

Did you think that in my analogy Al-Qaera were the forces of Satan and America the good Muslims?

At 10/13/2005 09:55:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obiviouly my reply to you went directly over your head so I won't bother to repeat myself.

At 10/14/2005 06:51:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrew Brehm, AlQaeda is the army of Satan, period. They call themselves muslin but their actions say otherwise. How did you not understand that?

At 10/14/2005 08:00:00 AM, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...


what are you talking about? What was their in your reply that went over my head? You obviously misunderstood my sarcastic analogy. I corrected you. No need to get personal.

Be a nice anonymous poster and apologise.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home