Purported Iraq al Qaeda tape to U.S.: Jihad not over

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A purported audio recording by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq vows to step up the group's fight against the United States, saying, "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."

The recording was posted Friday on an Islamist Web site and the speaker is identified as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"Come down to the battlefield, you coward," the speaker says on the recording, which CNN cannot independently confirm as the voice of al-Muhajir.

Calling President Bush a "lame duck" and labeling outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a "coward," the speaker tells Bush not to "run away as your lame defense secretary ran away," referring to Rumsfeld's resignation Wednesday.

Critics of the U.S.-led war in Iraq have laid much of the blame for its problems on Rumsfeld. The war's growing unpopularity contributed to the unseating of the Republican Party in both chambers of Congress in Tuesday's election. (Watch Rumsfeld acknowledge what's going wrong -- 2:23)

Much of the Iraqi insurgency has been blamed on al Qaeda in Iraq, whose former chief al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S.-led airstrike in June.

The speaker on the tape vows that al Qaeda in Iraq will not stop its jihad "until we sit under the olive trees in Rumiya after we blow up the wicked house known as the White House." He says the first phase of the jihad is now over, and that the next phase -- building an Islamic nation -- has begun.

"The victory day has come faster than we expected," he says. "Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away."

The speaker claims his al Qaeda army has 12,000 soldiers -- with 10,000 more waiting in the wings to join them.

And he pledges those troops to the service of the Mujahedeen Shura Council and the Islamic Nation of Iraq. He calls on other insurgent groups in Iraq to join with them.

"We have to be unified by the sword, even though disagreements exist between us," al-Muhajir said.

"Go where God has ordered you to go and know that we are with you. We are your soldiers and your men," he says.

blah blah blah, stick it where the sun don't shine.
If they had any guts at all why don't they come out and face us like real men instead of blowing up innocent women and children.
Cowards!!!

I believe the Jihad is just really starting now. they know they have the Americans on the run now they just have to rev it up a little to bring us to our kness we no longer have the stomach to stick out a fight rather it is for the right reasons or not doesnt matter since , we are there and in the battle, now I am sure we will start pulling out the troops and they will take this as a major defeat, which it is! :cry: I think it won't be to much longer we will be seeing our on suicide bombers here in America.

JIHAD THIS

Reading this is just not the same as hearing it. I heard it on the Schnitt Show this afternoon.

I will say this in agreement with Nitty.....the Dems better make darn sure that they don't send any "backing down" messages or I agree Nitty....we're gonna be in big trouble.

Surely they must know that? :roll:

This is their chance. If they are "so much better and smarter and wiser" then prove it.

You've been given your chance. Secure this country and stand up to terrorism. Let's just see if you can do it. :?

All I know is that somebody better do it and we better find that somebody fast. :?

Sorry guys but BAKER is going to screw us and he's screwing us with both sides of the aisle with a plan that's been in the works for some years. No one in congress has control over this.......they are at James Baker's mercy.

This is in the hands of the Globalists and we've just been stabbed in the gut.

The writing was on the wall when bush and congress refused to seal up the border in 01 but definitely by 02. We are knowingly allowing this evil enemy to march right into our back door. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that something is very wrong here.

When they let Fallujah go the first time & didn't let them finish the job the 2nd time and let Mucky Sadr go THREE TIMES {knowing Iran was and is pulling his strings} -- screwing our Marines & Soldiers -- they laid their traitorous cards on the table for all to see.

After the senate debacle with mccain & pence's hand being shown, there was nothing left for them to hide.

We have the strongest military in history. Our men and women, for the most part, are smart and courageous. If this administration had wanted to finish this job, it would have been FINISHED no matter how difficult.
The only reason why our kids are still fighting an 'urban' fight is because we've tied their hands and are playing a PC game.

A rightgeous fight has turned into a Globalist distraction at the expense of our sovereignty.

{vent over}

.

So the message is that the terrorists want us to stay in Iraq?

That's what I hear in this message.

Why is it that 'terrorists' keep making statements again and again of which the Bush administration wants the opposite of? If they are not on the payroll, they should be.

"Get out of Iraq cowards. We will blow up the White House after you retreat"

Is this not obvious reverse psychology?

It would be very stupid for any of the people fighting against us in Iraq to make a statement like this right after a Democrat victory. If the rebels really wanted America out of Iraq, to make these statements would be a mistake.

If someone wanted America to stay in Iraq, then these are the kind of comments they would want to make to increase the chances of that.

I feel we are being manipulated.

W

You are 100% right on as usual W. we are being manipulated!

What they should do is what should have been done in Nam, turn the Marines loose and tell them to do what it takes to get the job done and quit putting them on trial for for shooting people, if they want a jihad lets really show them what we can do and quit pussyfooting around.
We have the best trained Army, Navy and Air Force in the world, lets put them to work doing what they are trained to do, all they need to do is untie their hands.
The Army special forces believe they had bin laden surrounded one time but had to get permission from DC to go in, nobody could make a decision and so they were told to back off.
I get so upset with these politicians letting our young people gey killed and maimed just because they are afraid of what people will say.
I'm in my late 50's and half crippled up but I went down to a Marine recruiter and asked if they wanted combat trained former Marines, he said yes and I said OK where do I sign, he told me I was too old and thanked me but I told him this was BS, why am I tool old to fight for my country, I have lived my life, why should these young people die for me when they have there whole life ahead of them, he had no real answer.

After this last election, the people voted so maybe our war policy might change, it remains to be seen what a Dem. controlled congress will do to that end.
My self, as a Vietnam combat veteran, from the start of the war on terror, tried to gain insight into just who we were, and are fighting against. From the taliban, to ben laden, to Iraq, Iran, and Arab Islamic fanatics. The American Public, and all our representatives in congress, have not come to a full realization of what is ment by Holy War, or Jihad. The call for Jihad, started over twenty five years ago. (do a search!) And read the following;

27 Apr 2006
Bin Laden Puts All Americans On Notice
by Srdja Trifkovic; www.ChroniclesMagazine.org

After a three-month break al-Qaeda’s leader addressed the faithful again on Sunday,
April 23, with an audio tape that was broadcast on Al-Jazeera television. While the focus
of this bin Laden message— believed by the intelligence community to be authentic—was on the need for Muslims to fight “Zionists and crusaders, “ it should not be ignored by non-Muslims. For the first time, ordinary Americans and Europeans were told in no uncertain terms that they are all legitimate targets. Less than 24 hours after the tape was released, three bombs killed or wounded scores of people, including foreign tourists, in the Egyptian Red Sea resort town of Dahab on the Sinai peninsula.

The following day two suicide bombers targeted international peacekeepers in the Sinai, killing themselves but leaving their intended victims unscathed.
The exact identity of the attackers is uncertain and it is not known if their
timing was linked to Bin Laden’s tape. Preliminary findings of the investigation show a link between these attacks and those in the Red Sea resorts of Taba (October 2004) and Sharm el-Sheikh (July 2005) that were carried out by a group calling itself Tawhid wal Jihad (Unification and Holy War).
Arab commentators point out that “Western analysts, who generally portray Bin Laden as greatly weakened since the start of the war on terror, should reconsider their assessment of the Al Qaeda leader.” In the perception of the Muslim world he and his network are neither down nor out.
A 35-minute video address by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda’s top man in Iraq, was released on April 25. In this professionally produced document, America’s most wanted man in Iraq denounced the new“puppet”
government in Baghdad and warned of new attacks. Those two tapes bring to 34 the number of major statements released by al-Qaeda leaders since 2001.

Usama bin Laden asserted that the exploits of both Europe and the United States in the Muslim world reflect the ongoing “crusade” against Muslims. “The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist crusader war on Islam,” he said.

Significantly, he condemned both Western governments and individuals for this “crusade”: I say that this war is the joint responsibility of the people and the governments. While the war continues, the people renew their allegiance to their rulers and politicians and continue to send their sons to our countries to fight us.

This statement offers bin Laden’s specific reiteration of of Al-Qaeda’s theological justification for its attacks on ordinary citizens in the Western world. Pre-9-11 statements by al-Qaeda leaders and bin Laden himself clearly indicated their belief that American civilians are legitimate targets, but it was more than six months after the attacks, on April 24, 2002, that al-Qaeda released a statement of 3,700 words outlining its religious justification for killing civilians.

Titled “A Statement from Qaidat al-Jihad Regarding the Mandates of the Heroes and the Legality of the Operations in New York and Washington,” it asserted that the United States was waging an offensive war against Islam as a whole, and that al-Qaeda’s operations were therefore Kuranically
ordained defensive measures to protect the Muslim community from external aggression.

The scholars at Islam’s foremost institution of higher learning, Cairo’s Al-
Azhar University, have subsequently confirmed that “according to Islamic law, if the enemy steps on Muslims’ land, jihad becomes a duty on every male and female Muslim” regardless of ethnicity or citizenship.
Particularly significant for the non-Muslim world is al-Qaeda’s repeated insistence— confirmed in the latest bin Laden tape—that there is no prohibition against killing non-combatants, women and children in Islam.

Al-Qaeda has already established a number of conditions when Muslims are allowed, under Islamic law, to kill noncombatants:
1. Since America has targeted Muslim civilians, either itself or by proxy (Israel), the same response is legal: whoever attacks you, attack him in like manner. (Kuran, 2-194)
If the unbelievers have targeted Muslim women, children and elderly—as al-Qaeda asserts they have done—it is permissible for Muslims to respond in kind.

2. Muhammad specifically allowed killing civilians. Asked about the infidel children and women who stayed behind with the enemy fighters and were in danger of being killed, he replied, “They are from them.” They ceased to be innocents by remaining within the enemy camp.

3. Non-combatants may be killed if they have assisted in combat “in deed, word, opinion, or any other way.” This is justified by Muhammad’s order to kill Duraid Ibn al- Simma, an old and infirm poet who supposedly provided verbal advice to his enemies.This sweeping concept criminalizes indirect forms of support, which literally makes every gainfully employed American al-Qaeda’s fair game.

4. Furthermore, al-Qaeda’s theologians pointed out, “infidel” women and children may be killed when it is necessary to sap the strength of the enemy by destroying his property. Yet again the Hadith provides the example: the “prophet” did so during his attack on Banu Al-Nadhir.

5. Muhammad condoned the use of the contemporary weapons of mass destruction, specifically the catapult, against Taif. Civilians were going to be killed or maimed by heavy rocks hurled at the fortified city, but “Islam does allow civilian casualties if they occur in the course of an attack that is detrimental to the enemy’s military capacity.”

Bin Laden’s insistence on the “joint responsibility of the people and their governments” merely reiterates the assertion made in Al Qaeda’s 2002 statement that through their participation in the political process that results in anti-Muslim policies, all citizens of theUnited States and other countries supporting its policies are effectively guilty of aidingand abetting “Crusaders and Zionists,” and therefore legitimately targetable:

If the successive Crusader-Zionist governments had not received support from their people, their war against Islam and Muslims would not have taken such an obvious and conspicuous form. It is something that would not attain legitimacy except by the voices of the people.Let it be added that the presence of a large Muslim diaspora in the Western world is immaterial in the terrorist calculus. In Islamic jurisprudence any Muslim victims of
indiscriminate attacks on “infidel” targets are to be viewed strictly as collateral damage:

It is no objection to shooting arrows or other missiles against the infidels that there may chance to be among them a Muslim . . . because [such attack] remedies a general evil in the repulsion thereof from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim . . . is only a particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted . . . [I]t seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of Muslims . . . and hence, if the use of missile weapons were prohibited on account of these Muslims, war would be obstructed.

Pakistani General S.K. Malik would not be considered a terrorist, having belonged to the military establishment of a “strategic ally” of the United States. And yet his book The Quranic Concept of War, which was used as a training manual by the military in several Muslim countries and honored with a foreword by Pakistan’s late dictator Gen. Zia-ul- Haq, follows the same reasoning as al-Qaeda.
Malik says that Muslims regret having to wage war, but “in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His Will and work against the every purpose of the creation of mankind.”
In that case it is “necessary to remove such cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means, in order to save the rest of humanity.” Once the war is under way, however, Brig. Malik admits with perfect frankness that “to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own
hearts” and strike it into the hearts of the infidel: Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself.

Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly
anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end
meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.
It is possible to dispute, with greater or lesser vigor, the validity of al-Qaeda’s and Brig. Malik’s justifications for terror from within Islam, that is to say, using the tools of Islamic scholarship. It is not possible to dispute that their arguments are based on incontrovertibly valid Islamic sources, precedents, and methods of deduction.

While in some details Islam is not monolithic and there is no single «correct Islam, the apologists for terror invoke sources and principles that are independent of any capricious or dubious interpretations of the Kuran or the Hadith. The jubilant masses thronging streets across the Muslim world—and in many Western locations, such as Paterson, NJ—to celebrate the 9-11 attacks may not have known much about theology and jurisprudence, but their imams and madrassa teachers did.

Even if the latter disapprove of al-Qaeda’s methods, as some among them probably do, they would be hard-pressed to reject the fundamental claim of these theorists and practitioners of terror: that their guidance as well as their methods are rooted in the orthodox Islamic sources and practices.

The terrorists may differ from other Muslims in the exact command for action that they derive from the Kuran and the hadith, but they all speak
the same language, literally as well as legally and theologically.
They speak the same language because Islam as such—and not some allegedly aberrant variety of the “genuine” creed—creates among its adherents the paradigm of a permanent cosmic war that breeds the terrorist Weltanscahuung. Antagonism towards the demonized “infidel” is rooted in the conviction that Islam is not only the true faith but the only faith with any truth. Humanity is divided between Muslims and kafirs.

No matter how much a believer has been exposed to Western or secular thought, no matter which passport he carries or what clothes he wears, his instinctive first priority on meeting a stranger is to establish which side of this divide that person belongs.
As Indian Muslim leader Maulana Muhammad Ali declared in 1924,
“According to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr Gandhi.” Antagonism towards non-Muslim religions, societies and cultures, is not the trait shared by all Muslims, but it is an attitude mandated to all true Muslims and prevalent among many.

Through jihad Islam has emerged as a quasi-religious ideology of cultural and political imperialism that absolutizes the conflict with all that is other
than itself and knows no natural limits to itself.

In conclusion, it is idle to claim, and self-defeating to deny, that Islam has created a moral philosophy and a legal code that in principle allows terrorist acts, including mass murder of innocent women and children. It erases individual judgment based on natural morality or on the allegiance to any other source of authority but itself, and it mandates submission to the letter of revealed law (Kuran) or to the precedent of Muhammad (Hadith).
Analogies thus derived stand above reason, conscience, or nature.

Muhammad has stifled in his followers the proclivity to natural law, “this high and often ultrahuman motive” enhanced by education and refinement
that is found in the pride of glorious traditions, in a keen sympathy with
surrounding misery, or in philosophical recognition of the dignity of the
species.

Ignorance deprives savage nations of such incentives. Yet in the
marvelous economy of nature this very ignorance is a source of greater
strength. It affords them the mighty stimulus of fanaticism. (C.S. Lewis)

A good Muslim is afforded such mighty stimulus because he knows that thing is right simply because Allah says so, or because the prophet has thus said or done. The lack of any pretense to a moral basis for sharia is explicit: There is no “spirit of the law” in Islam, no rationality behind it for human reason to discover.

There is no discernment of the consequences of deeds, and revelation and tradition must not be questioned. No other standard of good and evil can be invoked, least of all a notion of “natural” justice such as that assumed by the founding documents of the United States.

Islam’s denigration of the individual conscience removes inhibitions against
terrorist acts, inhibitions that other religions, other legal codes, and other world views reinforce. The dictum of jihad befits the demand for an obedient servant’s prostration before a capricious master whose commands have no rational basis.
The political consequences are crucial for societies that derive their concept of authority from this image. Any notion of freedom distinct from that implicit in that complete submission is forbidden and sinful. Human imperfection is not subject to improvement in the direction of God. Political progress of the kind that defined America in 1776 is not just impossible, it is irrelevant.

Last but by no means least, Islam provides a powerful means of social and
political mobilization in active pursuit or in tacit support of terrorism. Its peculiar teaching thus affects people who otherwise would not be compelled to internalize the terrorist mindset by a “merely” secular ideology (e.g., class struggle, poverty, anger at American foreign policies, Arab nationalism, lack of democracy etc.). Even those Muslims who want to break free from the shackles of the jihadist legacy have a problem in the widespread support among their fellow traditional Muslims—notably among the young second generation immigrants in the West—for the orthodox variety of jihad that breeds terrorism.

The fruits of Islam’s denial of natural morality are as predictable as they are grim, for the Muslims no less than for their victims: both are enslaved, brutalized, and dehumanized.

The fruits of Muhammad’s adage that “only Muslims’ blood is equal” is the
curse that cannot be eradicated, short of a bold reform from within that seems no more likely today than at any time in the past 14 centuries.

Did we forget that even Sadam Hussein on August 10, 1990 declares a "jihad" or holy war against the U.S. and Israel.

The Western Civilizations, of Judo-Christian beliefs have a hard time, understanding Islamic thought. Even after all the Jihad attacts, the urgancy of the threat is not, dealt with the same intent. We want to talk them to a peaceful solution. It won't work anymore then the Mexican mindset, and the border problems of today.
Only direct action and complete force, will turn the tide. But it would mean deporting every Moslem, closing down every Mosque to bring pressure on the Islamic fanatic. And no Islamic Cells existed within our borders.
They would still be in Canada, and So. American host countries, as in other countries around the world.

What went wrong in Iraq? We allowed two Islamic factions apart of a forming Government, instead of a nonsecular Govt. ( like Turkey was) And can anyone give me an anwser to why the Kurds were not given their homeland back? Or was the U.S. worried about stepping on to many toes, to make it happen. The Kurds would of been our trump card. And would of had a Democratic government in place, before Iraq, three years ago. If we went that route. We also failed to send in more troops, where the Iraqi army just faded back into civilian life, underground. And to cover the western Iraqi borders, from insurgents. They seem to know where to find the explosives for all the roadside bombs, (they can only carry so much if on foot, and if they were mobile, they were directed to well hidden weapon and ammo caches) that our ground troops might of intercepted or located.

But then there is only so much an armchair General can do at home. :?