• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Captured Al-Qaeda documents "Every year worse then the last"

Specop 007

Diamond Member
No suprise to me really. I never had many doubts we'd go over, kick ass and take names.
Too bad the American Media doesnt feel the same way. Its almost disgusting how the media and Democrats WANT us to lose this war.
Which isnt all that ironic, as AQ admits the only place they are successful is manipulating the media. But I wouldnt consider it "manipulating", as the media wants us to fail regardless.

I really cant imagine what it would be like if the Democrats and media actually supported the United States. Guess its just out of character for them.

Article

May 08, 2006
Captured AQ Documents: "Every Year Is Worse Than The Previous Year"
CENTCOM announced today that they had captured al-Qaeda correspondence in Iraq that discusses the state of the insurgency, especially around Baghdad but also around the entire country. Far from optimistic, the documents captured in an April 16th raid reveal frustration and desperation, as the terrorists acknowledge the superior position of American and free Iraqi forces and their ability to quickly adapt to new tactics.
In these passages, the AQ terrorist author -- described as a person "of significance" due to the extensive analysis applied -- often refers to the elected Iraqi government as the "Shi'ites":
A glance at the reality of Baghdad in light of the latest events (sectarian turmoil)
1. It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah?s wisdom.
The author of this analysis acknowledges two truths. First, rather than representing any real existential threat to the government, the insurgency only rises to the level of a "daily annoyance". This clashes with the depiction in the American media of the Zarqawi network as a mass destabilizer, a description that even AQ rejects. The terror analyst also recognizes that the tactics used by the terrorist network have largely alienated even the Sunnis by killing those who represent no threat to AQ -- the "scared and the hiding ones". AQ, he says, needs an image makeover.
2. The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.
3. There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join[t] operations.
This passage admits that the foreign insurgents not only do not have any organization or military capabilities, but also resist coordination. In some ways, that makes discovering and neutralizing them more difficult, but it also keeps AQ from holding any territory or controlling the area in any meaningful way. Their assets in Baghdad cannot even coordinate with each other to carry out joint operations, indicating a poor system of communications -- likely brought about by American and Iraqi offensives against the network.
4. The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.
This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).
This is a frank admission that the only effect that AQ has made is to convince the media -- presumably the American media -- that the situation cannot be controlled, despite their acknowledgement that they represent nothing more than a nuisance. It also cautions against falling in love with seeing themselves on the TV, because the cost of such operations results in a lack of assets for holding real territory. Right now, they cannot even hold a university, let alone a city or suburb.
At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin?s control and influence over Baghdad.
The terrorists realize that their control over the Sunni Triangle -- their power base -- has waned with each passing year. It also acknowledges the great strength of the American military: its ability to quickly adapt and persevere. The "clear and hold" strategy adopted by military commanders in conjunction with the training of the Iraqi army has forced AQ to the brink of irrelevancy, and they know it.
5. The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters:
n First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events.
n Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations.
In other words, the Americans are winning the media war in Iraq. That's something that the American media has yet to report in any substantive way. The memo also indicates that the mosques have largely turned against the insurgents, apparently excoriating them for sinfulness. Their continuing murder of Iraqi civilians and police have only made that impression worse.
6. The mujahidin do not have any stored weapons and ammunition in their possession in Baghdad, particularly rockets, such as C5K Katyosha or bomber or mortars which we realized their importance and shortage in Baghdad. That was due to lack of check and balance, and proper follow-ups.
The insurgents have finally run low on ammunition, and AQ cannot resupply them in Baghdad. That sounds like a critical tipping point for AQ in Baghdad.
7. The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not?
It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin?s. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party?s and the Committee?s channels.
I believe that we should not allow this situation to exist at all, and we should bury it before it surfaces and reject any suggestion to that effect.
The terrorists understand that their only hope in fighting the Iraqi army is if the Sunnis do not enlist. As soon as the Sunnis start enlisting in large numbers, AQ runs the risk of murdering family members of the dwindling support they currently still have. Integrating the Iraqi Army will provide the biggest blow to AQ ambitions in the nation, and almost guarantees to put them on the run for good.
The rest of the document evaluates the commanders in the field for AQ, and they sound like a sorry lot. The expertise of the Baghdad commander is limited to transporting cars for conversion to booby-traps; otherwise, the analyst notes, he's rather "simple" and has no grasp of strategic matters. The commander for Northern al-Karkh worries about his own personal security, because the Americans have his picture and voice print -- so all he does is hide out.
At the end, we find this gem:
Northern al-Karkh groups are estimated at 40 mujahid, so is the Southern Karkh. They could double that number if necessary. Al-Rassafah groups in general is estimated at 30 mujahidin as I was informed by the commander of al-Rassafah. These are very small numbers compared to the tens of thousands of the enemy troops. How can we increase these numbers?
This plaintive assessment shows how weakened Zarqawi has become at the hands of the Americans. Between the three commands in the Baghdad area, AQ has a grand total of 110 mujahid, admittedly no match for the thousands of American troops in Baghdad and the thousands of Iraqi troops we are training and putting into play. No wonder Zarqawi has given up on suicide missions -- he has almost nothing left.
This document shows that we have just about triumphed over the AQ network in Iraq, and AQ knows it. Hopefully, the American media might finally start reporting it.
UPDATE: Added the final quote and edited the description.
UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin isn't holding her breath about the press covering this, but my good friend and fellow NARNian John at Power Line notes that the AP actually did report on the documents. They did manage to miss the point about how they have been successful only in manipulating the American media.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Wow. Someone's severly out of touch.

But seriously, Michelle Malkin? You're kidding, right?

Kidding about what?

Actually taking her seriously? She is like, the biggest internet conservative hack. You know, a tool.

It's like people taking the truthout website seriously.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Wow. Someone's severly out of touch.

But seriously, Michelle Malkin? You're kidding, right?

Kidding about what?

Actually taking her seriously? She is like, the biggest internet conservative hack. You know, a tool.

It's like people taking the truthout website seriously.

Gotchya. If it didnt come from a blatantly liberal news source its not to be trusted, is that what you mean?
You can go ahead and say it, its fine. People tend to believe only the news that comes from sources which lean to their beliefs and dismiss news that comes from sources that do not lean towards their beliefs.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Wow. Someone's severly out of touch.

But seriously, Michelle Malkin? You're kidding, right?

Kidding about what?

Actually taking her seriously? She is like, the biggest internet conservative hack. You know, a tool.

It's like people taking the truthout website seriously.

Gotchya. If it didnt come from a blatantly liberal news source its not to be trusted, is that what you mean?
You can go ahead and say it, its fine. People tend to believe only the news that comes from sources which lean to their beliefs and dismiss news that comes from sources that do not lean towards their beliefs.

Excuse me? You got this from a BLOG. Write back when you get some intellectual integrity.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Excuse me? You got this from a BLOG. Write back when you get some intellectual integrity.

Interesting. I didnt know blogs used .mil addresses! Wouldnt that make it a mog then? 😉
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Excuse me? You got this from a BLOG. Write back when you get some intellectual integrity.

Interesting. I didnt know blogs used .mil addresses! Wouldnt that make it a mog then? 😉

Your site linked to a blog, buddy.

And besides, you trust whatever the military says? Before you go off and make broad conclusions about something a branch of the government reported, go look on the news about the 40 people killed in Iraq today. Insurgency winding down? This article doesn't mean ****** about the insurgency in Iraq, since Al Queda is only a small fraction of the insurgency anyway.

One thing is does say is that there is very little organization in the Iraq insurgency. That is bad news, friend. Little organization means there's no one enemy to take out. To stop it you'd pretty much have to take out everybody. But then again, such is the nature of terrorism these days. I guess the only positive thing we can take out of Iraq is (hopefully) we've learned our lesson that conventional warfare doesn't cut it anymore.

I know you probably only trust Fox News and its acolytes, but think about the facts. Al Queda has been in the decline for years. We've captured so many 'second-in-commands' that we don't know what to do with them. And yet, the Iraq insurgency is still going, strong as ever. No correlation. Al Queda != Iraq insurgency.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Your site linked to a blog, buddy.

Original source Here
Read the blog.

And besides, you trust whatever the military says? Before you go off and make broad conclusions about something a branch of the government reported, go look on the news about the 40 people killed in Iraq today. Insurgency winding down? This article doesn't mean ****** about the insurgency in Iraq, since Al Queda is only a small fraction of the insurgency anyway.

One thing is does say is that there is very little organization in the Iraq insurgency. That is bad news, friend. Little organization means there's no one enemy to take out. To stop it you'd pretty much have to take out everybody. But then again, such is the nature of terrorism these days. I guess the only positive thing we can take out of Iraq is (hopefully) we've learned our lesson that conventional warfare doesn't cut it anymore.

I know you probably only trust Fox News and its acolytes, but think about the facts. Al Queda has been in the decline for years. We've captured so many 'second-in-commands' that we don't know what to do with them. And yet, the Iraq insurgency is still going, strong as ever. No correlation. Al Queda != Iraq insurgency.

My reply to that was posted above. I'll post it again though for reference.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Gotchya. If it didnt come from a blatantly liberal news source its not to be trusted, is that what you mean?
You can go ahead and say it, its fine. People tend to believe only the news that comes from sources which lean to their beliefs and dismiss news that comes from sources that do not lean towards their beliefs.

As for the Iraqi insurgency, check my post about how the local Iraqi populations are banding together to fight off the insurgents. AQ is crumbling, the Iraq insurgents are getting shot at by their own countrymen who are tired of them....

Looks pretty damned good to me. But, see my comments in my first post. Again posted for reference.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its almost disgusting how the media and Democrats WANT us to lose this war.
 
Al Queda wasn't IN Iraq until we went there with our cowboy war. That is the laughable truth. Nobody cares about AQ in Iraq, they were never strong to begin with. Guerilla warfare (whether it's by AQ, insurgents, whoever) continues to claim American lives (3,500 now), and the longer we are in that god forsaken country, the lower the morale of the American people.

Talk to us when we make progress on catching Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Why hasn't there been any news on this since our fearless administration said it was a top priority?
 
Since this thread is devoid of content, I'll at least play along with the personal attacks. If the Democrats and the Media "want" the US to lose, then it would follow that the Republicans only want the US to win so they can score political points. Think about it for a second...overly pseudo-macho, what's-he-overcompensating-for guys like Specop 007 can't bring up ANY positive event in Iraq without taking a shot at their follow Americans that they perceive as their enemies. Good things in Iraq aren't good for their own sake, they are simply one of a dozen sources of cheap shots to take at the patriotism of people with different political views. How American of you :roll:

See, now how is this productive? Is someone really going to read Specop's thread and say, "Hey, this childishly insulting piece from some guy obsessed with Counterstrike really has got me thinking...what have I been doing with my life? It's time for me to step up and going the ranks of people who think Cal Thomas has some good ideas. It's the only way." Please.
 
Well one would hope that AQ would just give up if they were getting their ass beat so bad. Unfortunately it seems our occupation in Iraq acts like a super conduit for more to join their cause. One could come to the conclusion that the Dub's excellent adventure in Iraq has done more for their recruiting effort and I'd bet that that conclusion is pretty spot on. It seems we are defeating our own purpose by continuing to fuel this insane military action.

Too bad Bush and his handlers didn't consider this while they were cherry picking dodgy Intel to trick the American Public into supporting this disaster of a Foreign policy.Billions of dollars wasted, over 20,000 American Causalities and we seem to be no better off than before we started this mistake in Iraq.
 
Why are we even fighting AQ in Iraq? Were we not getting the job done on the Afghanistan front? We had them right there? I also think that you will find quite a bit of support for the Afghan front than Iraq. This whole "fight them over there instead of here" arguement is stupid considering we were already fighting them in Afghanistan. I supported the conflict in pursuit of AQ but not the invasion of Iraq. It would have made more sense to invade Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, if the reason was to fight terrorists before they come to our borders. Try as you might, but the invasion of Iraq is almost indefensible.

That all being said, I hope we are crushing AQ, and that every year is worse for them and their supporters, but I still do not believe Iraq hand anything to do with them till after Saddam was gone. Iran and Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia had more terrorism supporters for far longer.
 
Try as you might, but the invasion of Iraq is almost indefensible.
i agree wholeheartedly with one small proviso - the invasion of iraq is almost indefensible as far as it pertains to the lies given by bush, cheney et al for justifying the war.

the real reasons for why bush decided to subjugate that country imho has little in common with the propaganda that got shoved down our throats to get us to support his ill-planned grab for oil. otherwise, i'd tend to think that the invasion of iraq would be absolutely indefensible and we wouldn't be there at all right now had bush told us the truth from the very beginning. bush and his oil buddies had to pathologically lie his way into iraq.

and from the looks of things he's going to have lie his way out of there too. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Why would anyone believe anything claimed by the Pentagon or the US military when both are admitted users of propaganda?

Here arejust a couple small examples from recent memory:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4489696.stm

Why believe anything from anyone with everyone's long history of innaccuracy, including the media?

Indeed. It's not an easy task to ferret out the truth.
But I certainly won't take the word of an organization that admits it's spent billions researching the best way to lie and/or mislead during war.

 
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Why would anyone believe anything claimed by the Pentagon or the US military when both are admitted users of propaganda?

Here arejust a couple small examples from recent memory:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4489696.stm

Why believe anything from anyone with everyone's long history of innaccuracy, including the media?

Indeed. It's not an easy task to ferret out the truth.
But I certainly won't take the word of an organization that admits it's spent billions researching the best way to lie and/or mislead during war.

Who do you trust? Nobody?
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Wow. Someone's severly out of touch.

But seriously, Michelle Malkin? You're kidding, right?

Ha! I was going to say the same thing.

BTW, spec its they're not their. How far did you go in elementary school?
 
AQ is not an army. Its a terrrorist group. Who achieved its dual goals of a spectacular attack and the goading of the US to attack an Arab Muslim state.
btw anyone who knows history knows the French fought the Algerian terrorists with incredible brutality, killing every one of the terrorist leaders. And still did not end terrorism. In fact it was more prevalent AFTER they killed all the terrorist leaders.
 
The failure of AQ, or rather Ayman al-Zawahiri and his gang, is nothing new. The guy has met failure since his days in Egypt.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
:music:
America, FVCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fvcking day yeah,
America, FVCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FVCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FVCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it?s the dream that we all share; it?s the hope for tomorrow
:music:

I would only hope that people would have an attention span greater than a peanut, and recall there was *NO* AQ in iraqi prior to US involvement.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
The failure of AQ, or rather Ayman al-Zawahiri and his gang, is nothing new. The guy has met failure since his days in Egypt.
So around 20,000 casualties is a failure (in conjunction with the insurgents)? Whether he's failing now or not, the damage has already been done and most Americans have made up their minds about this war.
 
Hmm. The Bushies keep blaming AQ for the attacks in Iraq. The attacks in Iraq are increasing. So how can AQ be doing poorly?
 
Back
Top