al-Zarqawi's last safe house letter

[amish]

link

Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:

___

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.

3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:

1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.

5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

7. A war between the Americans and Iraq. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.

wow, that was really interesting. especially the part about planting bogus evidence about iran. i'm starting to think that we won't get unilaterally involved with iran now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, I suspend belief in anything I hear from all sides in this conflict. Who knows what is truth and what is psychological warfare and manipulation.

 

[halik]

damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

 

[daniel49]

He couldn't operate a gun, but I guess he figured out the keyboard.
The cache of info seems to have precipitated thier house of cards in Iraq to fall.
Heres hoping!

 

[ScudRunner]

Bush and Rumsfeld have been doing an outstanding job in Iraq, it will soon be time to move on to Iran:thumbsup:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Attempting to troll could get you a well deserved vacation

Want to try again?

Anandtech Moderator

 

[Alistar7]

The only reason you even know what the hell is going on inside Iraq is the free press that has been established. How often did you read or hear about Saddam slaughtering his own people, the systematic rapes, the daily casualties due to preventable neglect during UN sanctions? Iraq is on the right path and their struggle along the way will still be far less brutal and deadly than during Saddam's reign.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: ScudRunner
Bush and Rumsfeld have been doing an outstanding job in Iraq, it will soon be time to move on to Iran:thumbsup:

How is this remotely on topic to the OP?

Here's to hoping you never break 100 posts...

Future Shock

 

[Alistar7]

"6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests. "


Assuming Iran has been supporting AQ in some manner, will this change their position?
Was this just a cover up for Iran to ward off any suspicion regarding information that might get out about them trying to acquire WMD?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests. "


Assuming Iran has been supporting AQ in some manner, will this change their position?
Was this just a cover up for Iran to ward off any suspicion regarding information that might get out about them trying to acquire WMD?

I dont think Iran has been trying to hide the fact they are trying are they?

 

[ScudRunner]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: ScudRunner
Bush and Rumsfeld have been doing an outstanding job in Iraq, it will soon be time to move on to Iran:thumbsup:

How is this remotely on topic to the OP?

Here's to hoping you never break 100 posts...

Future Shock

P&N is a regular hot bed of Al Qaeida supporters:thumbsdown:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Don't feed the trolls Engineer...

Thank you!

 

[alchemize]

Don't feed the trolls Engineer...

 

[CanOWorms]

Are there any published numbers on the casualties for the Iraqi National Guard soldiers?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize
Don't feed the trolls Engineer...

Thank you!

LOL. The unedited post was a hell of a lot funnier. Ive never seen a post edited so fast. By the time I clicked quote it was different.

Interesting eh? The letter I mean.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize
Don't feed the trolls Engineer...

Thank you!

LOL. The unedited post was a hell of a lot funnier. Ive never seen a post edited so fast. By the time I clicked quote it was different.

Interesting eh? The letter I mean.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: halik
damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

We all did. It's a shame that so much talent is put to such a wasteful purpose.

Try looking at 9/11 from an objective point of view as a military strike. It has to rank as one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Tom
one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

In its element of surprise and its effect. However I am continuously amazed when people are impressed that Al Qaeda successfully executed the attack. It was very simple at the time, and a similar attack could be easily executed today.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Tom
one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

In its element of surprise and its effect. However I am continuously amazed when people are impressed that Al Qaeda successfully executed the attack. It was very simple at the time, and a similar attack could be easily executed today.

It was far from simple, and extremely clever in using our own devices and weaknesses against us. And it took a great deal of discipline to carry out.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: halik
damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

We all did. It's a shame that so much talent is put to such a wasteful purpose.

Try looking at 9/11 from an objective point of view as a military strike. It has to rank as one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

Hardly. They hit civilians, not a military target. Hey, I know lets all praise hitler!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: halik
damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

We all did. It's a shame that so much talent is put to such a wasteful purpose.

Try looking at 9/11 from an objective point of view as a military strike. It has to rank as one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

IF you consider the cowardly act of flying airplanes into completely defenseless buildings filled with thousands of innocent and defenseless people to be "a military strike"...?!?

9/11 was a strategic strike, not a tactical one. I think you need to go back to school...

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: palehorse74


IF you consider the cowardly act of flying airplanes into completely defenseless buildings filled with thousands of innocent and defenseless people to be "a military strike"...?!?

How is this any different then bombing them with missles from the gulf? Or dropping them from in a plane? Both are cowardly acts against innocent people of a country much smaller and unable to defend itself against a superpower hellbent on war regrdless if it has a reason or not.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: halik
damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

We all did. It's a shame that so much talent is put to such a wasteful purpose.

Try looking at 9/11 from an objective point of view as a military strike. It has to rank as one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

Hardly. They hit civilians, not a military target. Hey, I know lets all praise hitler!

Many brilliant strategic accomplishments (palehorse is right, "tractical" is the wrong word) were almost exclusivly targeted at civilians. Many of our own accomplishments in WWII came from just such a thing, including the two big ones in Japan.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: halik
damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

We all did. It's a shame that so much talent is put to such a wasteful purpose.

Try looking at 9/11 from an objective point of view as a military strike. It has to rank as one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

IF you consider the cowardly act of flying airplanes into completely defenseless buildings filled with thousands of innocent and defenseless people to be "a military strike"...?!?

9/11 was a strategic strike, not a tactical one. I think you need to go back to school...

While I agree with your last point, I think you should go back to school with him...very often, at least until very recently, military strikes often had no greater purpose than to kill a lot of civilians...most often to convince the enemy to give up. Nuking Japan would be a good example...as would the bombing campaign against both Japanese and German cities in WWII.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: palehorse74


IF you consider the cowardly act of flying airplanes into completely defenseless buildings filled with thousands of innocent and defenseless people to be "a military strike"...?!?

How is this any different then bombing them with missles from the gulf? Or dropping them from in a plane? Both are cowardly acts against innocent people of a country much smaller and unable to defend itself against a superpower hellbent on war regrdless if it has a reason or not.

lol... what a clown.

WE DONT INTENTIONALLY TARGET INNOCENTS YOU DOLT! forget about the extremely small number of sociopathic incidents, by the Marines for instance, and wake up to the reality of the situation.

The single biggest difference between us and the enemy we're fighting is that we actually regret the loss of innocent life. They dont.

$#^%$ Steeple... bah. everytime I see you post it makes me think of Carlos Mencia's trademark joke: "DEE DE DEEE!"

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: halik
damn,
i think the GOP definitely underestimated these guys...

We all did. It's a shame that so much talent is put to such a wasteful purpose.

Try looking at 9/11 from an objective point of view as a military strike. It has to rank as one of the most remarkable tactical achievments since Little Big Horn.

IF you consider the cowardly act of flying airplanes into completely defenseless buildings filled with thousands of innocent and defenseless people to be "a military strike"...?!?

9/11 was a strategic strike, not a tactical one. I think you need to go back to school...

While I agree with your last point, I think you should go back to school with him...very often, at least until very recently, military strikes often had no greater purpose than to kill a lot of civilians...most often to convince the enemy to give up. Nuking Japan would be a good example...as would the bombing campaign against both Japanese and German cities in WWII.

ok, I should have prefaced it by saying that by modern terms, the intentional targeting and murder of innocents is no longer considered a "military strike," or a rational one for that matter, unless those innocents are killed accidentally while standing near a high-value-target or a key piece of the enemies' infrastructure. Even then, commanders must weight collateral damage versus strategic gain.

Not many military science folks would describe 9/11 as a "military strike." Not in the 21st century.