Airedale

Welcome to the board Ordoni. I am not from Iraq or am I an Arab but it seems to me ( from what I have read and watched recently ) that people in Baghdad did see a change of fortune in their country when Saddam, back in 1980, invaded Iran.. I am speaking not of American interests or fellow Arab middle east nations interests that border Iraq, I am speaking of Iraqi,Sunni,Shia,Kurd interests in the fall out and result of Saddams reign on power. That attack and the 8 year war spelled disaster and a curse on the Iraqi middle class and the economy. Ordoni, I have a question for you; Was it a good thing Sadam was elected president....and held power for 35years ? Would his sons "election" to the presidency become an issue people would unamiously accept and be pleased about? If Iraqi's knew what their future would look like today,2005, back in the 1970's...... ? Would Saddam have been elected ? ? Did the Ba'athists make the right decision supporting Saddam in the 1970's ? Again, I welcome you, the newest member, to the board.

I think the Sunni minority was misled by their ruling baathist party leaders. If the october 15th plan to vote on the constitution was scrapped in order to appease the minority... the result is the old saying ; "Give them an inch...an they will take a mile ie Given a chance to regroup, they will argue that when it comes to power sharing, they, being the minority, have a historical leg to stand on. That must be honored and respected...ect....ect...blah blah blah...yeah. They will argue to maintain the hold on power. They will not settle for less than 51% controlling interest in the government. They will get their chance again after the October vote. They can request, in the next year or two, a second constitutional convention be held I'm sure there is an article in the current constitution that they can point to as a legal leg to stand on. As far as putting a seal of approval on the current upcomming October decision; IRAQ: AL-SISTANI PLANS PRO-CONSTITUTION FATWA Baghdad, 23 Sept. (AKI) - Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is planning to issue a fatwa or religious edict ordering Shiites to approve the new draft constitution in a referendum next month, the New York Times reports. The American daily quoted an aide working in al-Sistani's office in Najaf, who said the senior cleric had told him he would issue the fatwa in the next few days. Al-Sistani's edicts encouraged many Shiites to take part in the January elections by telling them it was their religious duty to vote. The fatwa could boost the chances of success of the 15 October referendum in which the Iraqi people are called on to approve the draft constitution. ..... .....Sunni leaders and clerics have said they will boycott the referendum and various terrorist formations have threatened those who go to the polls. For some time, al-Qaeda has called on Sunni Muslims to boycott the referendum to accept or reject the controversial document but this view has not been widely embraced by Iraq's Sunnis, who form roughly 20 percent of the population. Almost all the pro-Baathist armed groups in Iraq, the Islamists who are not part of the al-Qaeda network and even one that has links with the Jordanian leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have issued several statements in which they stress the need to go to the urns to vote 'no' in the referendum. link So the real votes that "count" in the referendum are the number that turn out to vote in the Sunni dominated provinces Here is my take on the outcomes of the three western majority Sunni provinces... If the turnout is low, then the al Queda types are still in a position to repress the population. If the turnout is high, And the results are a majority NO vote, then the Baathists/sadamee may have a leg to stand on and may be in a position to work out deals with the majority to regain power..... using democracy. Could the Baathists / sadamee even sell out the al Queda types if amnesty talks take a generous turn for the old regime members?. If the turnout is high And the results are a majority YES vote, Then the Baathists /sadamee and al Queda types have nothing to lose with the current alliance with each other. They may continue to fight to the bitter civil war end. Could Sunni ( YES votes ) tribal alliances with the new government lead to a bitter internal civil war of Sunni against sadamee Sunni? The Iraqi government forming alliances on the family and tribal level will be the next most important step when November arrives in Iraq IMHO ... Then I most likely am wrong on all accounts as the above is mere ranting speculation of course. I by no means am an expert in Iraqi internal affairs. Much is uncertain .....but this; The constitution will be approved. How they protect,defend and execute it will be up to the people at the tribal level. on edit found this FATWA article; IRAQ: 'NO' VOTE ON CONSTITUTION AGAINST SHARIA SAYS AL-ZARQAWI GROUP Baghdad, 23 Sept. (AKI) - The Sharia [islamic law] division of the al-Qaeda in Iraq group has issued a fatwa saying that "participating in the referendum on the Iraqi constitution - even voting 'no' - means violating the Sharia." ........ .... ... link So, two Fatwa's are issued.... What side will Allah be forced to choose ?

People still need to be led Powerful Cleric Backs Iraq Constitution By TAREK EL-TABLAWY, Associated Press Writer 52 minutes ago BAGHDAD, Iraq - The country's most powerful Shiite cleric endorsed the draft constitution Thursday, rejecting opposition voiced by two popular leaders of Iraq's majority sect and underlining a rift also on display in anti-British violence in the southern city of Basra. Two officials in the Shiite Muslim hierarchy in Najaf said Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called senior aides together and told them to promote a "yes" vote among the faithful during the Oct. 15 national referendum on the constitution. ..... ......more at the link Will al-Sistani get the majority Shia to unite with a yes vote ? It could only unite the country and bring troop reduction talks a real possibility.

salim, I'm not sure what you are talking about with these two points from your post; Could you explain further your Rafsanjani deal ? Things may not be settled in Iran as I saw articles that Rafsanjani was furious with the election vote count, yet, he is willing to accept the outcome....at least for now. If there is a future "Rose" revolution, "orange" revolution or "Cedar"revolution in Iran, is Rafsanjani a man to lead it ? ...As long as the ruling Gaurdian Council Mullah's accept it as permissable under the laws of Islam?

Rafsanjanee lost to the mayor of Tehran Hardline mayor scores landslide Iran election win TEHRAN (Reuters) - Ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad swept to a landslide win in presidential elections on Saturday, spelling a possible end to Iran's fragile social reforms and tentative rapprochement with the West. Ahmadinejad, 48, received the backing of the religious poor to defeat moderate cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was supported by pro-reform parties and wealthy Iranians fearful of a hardline monopoly on power in the Islamic state. ... ....An official at the Guardian Council, which must approve the election results, said that out of 24.8 million votes counted, Ahmadinejad had won 61.7 percent of ballots cast, defying pre-poll predictions of a tight race. The official said turnout was 26 million, or 56 percent, down on the 63 percent of Iran's 46.7 million eligible voters who cast ballots in an inconclusive first round on June 17. ... Friday's vote exposed deep class divisions in the nation of 67 million people. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...ran_election_dc The Iranian leadership was calling for a very large turnout to show the world the people will turn out to vote in strong numbers despite the west calling for people to boycott the elections ? Nobody called for a boycott of the elections. Iranians fixed the elections by removing over 1,000 canidates from running for political office back in 2003, 2004. Actual moderates were denied a voice in the government. First election, out of 67 million citizens, 46.7 million voted . One week later, 26 million voted. More than 20 million fewer voted the second time ?

also from the above article We will know which direction Iran takes if Iranian bloggers continue to dissapear from the net and get thrown in jail soon. Interesting story from this Iranian blogger with pictures of empty voting stations in Iran. http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1260 Will this new leader deliver on his promise " To give wealth to the poor and throw in jail the corrupt individuals of society" Well, some may go to jail but the poor will always be among us.

How is your friend these days with the latest news ? Hardline mayor scores landslide Iran election win TEHRAN (Reuters) - Ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad swept to a landslide win in presidential elections on Saturday, spelling a possible end to Iran's fragile social reforms and tentative rapprochement with the West. Ahmadinejad, 48, received the backing of the religious poor to defeat moderate cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was supported by pro-reform parties and wealthy Iranians fearful of a hardline monopoly on power in the Islamic state. "The figures show that Ahmadinejad is the winner," Interior Ministry spokesman Jahanbakhsh Khanjani told reporters. He will be Iran's first non-cleric president for 24 years when he takes office in August. An official at the Guardian Council, which must approve the election results, said that out of 24.8 million votes counted, Ahmadinejad had won 61.7 percent of ballots cast, defying pre-poll predictions of a tight race. The official said turnout was 26 million, or 56 percent, down on the 63 percent of Iran's 46.7 million eligible voters who cast ballots in an inconclusive first round on June 17. "It's over, we accept that we've lost," said a close aide to Rafsanjani, 70, who was president from 1989 to 1997.Washington repeated earlier accusations that the vote was unfair due to the prior disqualification of more than 1,000 hopeful candidates. "We remain skeptical that the Iranian regime is interested in addressing either the legitimate desires of its own people or the concerns of the broader international community," said a State Department spokeswoman. She described Iran as "out of step" with the rest of the Middle East region. Friday's vote exposed deep class divisions in the nation of 67 million people. A former member of the special forces of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, Ahmadinejad's humble lifestyle and pledges to tackle corruption and redistribute the country's oil wealth appealed to the urban and rural religious poor. .... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...ran_election_dc Lots more at the link. So is this new leader in Iran a guy that Iraq will see as a threat ?

In the US it's about politics. The democrats want to get back into power. That is, they want their party to control the office of president. Some of the democratic leadership have said some things that appear to drive a wedgs in public opinion. If they can win enough votes by saying; " We want to get out of Iraq" and they take a poll that finds people like what they are saying.... they will continue to say it and talk about it they will promote the talking points that win votes. Actually, Iraqi's are low on their list as they can't give them money to get elected. They want to gain power and will say whatever to promote them into power. Democrats can't be in favor of the US presence in Iraq if George Bush is also in favor of staying in Iraq Thats politics. They have to find points that will anger people into votes for democratic politicians. Is it because the Sadamese and batthist and outside "freedom fighters" will know what day they can start to overthrow the Shia dominated government? Would the insurgency continue to battle knowing soldiers will be leaving on a certain day ? If the insurgency goes underground, stops fighting, does that mean the insurgency will never return ? Would the lack of resistance give a false sense of security to the majority ? Maybe it is better that the majority relize, daily, that freedom is not free. Maybe they sense the chance for holding real power is very close as the constitution is almost finished. They learned that if they say; " America out" ! can win votes among Iraqi voters, they will say it!. ( politics ) This "Muslim Scholars" demand hasn't been well covered at all in the west. The mainstream media hasn't reported that they have stopped calling for the US to leave. The media does not want to give the impression that George Bush is acomplishing the task of bringing democracy to Iraq controversy is what "sells papers" in the west. Democrats do not want people to hear such news reports released as it would win them fewer votes and make it hard to get elected, Maybe it is a good thing to get people in Iraq to think the future belongs to Iraqi's not the US or the insurgents. Iraq needs to stand on their own feet and deserve independance. They can't be independant with their enemies saying ; "160,000 troops from various nations patrolling the cities of Iraq doesn't look like a free nation." The democrats want Bush to obey them and what they say and tell him ! They do it through weekly public opinion polls An American Republican president, Abe Lincoln once said; "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" I think he also said something along this line; Weekly public opinion polls is not the way to govern the people hey Actually, the Iraqi's need to tell the Democrats,Republican and Independants in America what will or will not be done after their next set of elections and constitution are in place and decided. The democrats are not the only group that wants a lower US profile in Iraq. But even the Iraqi's know the presence of US troops needs to be lessened in the cities.We will listen to the Iraqi's. They ( you ) must demand the US withdraws from the high profiles in cities before the demand to leave the country is made. Even the Alsadrees worry about the return of Sadamese if the US fully withdraws without a good legal and judicial system in place to protect Iraqi ( the Alsadrees ) rights.

Can anybody understand and translate to English what is written in Arabic on this painting?

Iraq pay rise to stem brain drain By Caroline Hawley BBC correspondent in Baghdad The Iraqi government says it is going to double the salaries of university professors as part of a bid to stem the brain drain in the country. Doctors, teachers and businessmen have left Iraq because they feel unsafe. No exact figures are available and a government spokesman said there was little in reality that could be done to solve the problem. Under Saddam Hussein around 4m people are thought to have left, among them some of Iraq's top professionals. Just after the war, some exiles did return, but more than two years on the country's brain drain, far from being reversed, is continuing at a rate that is alarming many Iraqis. Health service University teachers will now see their salaries doubled to try to keep them in the country, however the problem is not confined to the campus. Doctors are fleeing, too, with worrying consequences for a health service already struggling with shortages of equipment and with the number of casualties they are treating A junior radiologist told the BBC that many of her senior colleagues had left Iraq because of kidnappings and death threats. "Most of them have fled out of the country and we are in desperate needs for their expertise. "This is the main problem that we're facing now in hospital. Most of the senior doctors have fled the country and I believe not only the doctors, all the expertise." And while doctors have been threatened and kidnapped, dozens of university teachers have also been killed. A senior government official said he believed Iraqi professionals were being deliberately and systematically targeted. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4612381.stm

A "sticky" thread? So this thread will always remain at the very top of the forum? That sounds like a good idea especially with new members. You could create a sticky thread with links and important information. Also, the thread could be "locked" so it wouldn't grow very long. So my Arabic translation was pasted "backwards"? I noticed that when I tried to copy a line starting at the far left side, it wouldn't copy. I figured it had something to do with arabic is written right to left and english is written left to right Thanks for the feedback on my attempt to translate. guess that website won't "sell papers" with the backward translation flaw Or I need to try better next attempt.

"[سلّس] أوراق" ؟ أنا سأستعمل العبارة في جملة. هو طبع المادة يعرف أنّ يبيع هو "أوراق" أنّ استطاع عنيت سيهمّ الناس كنت أن يستمرّ بعد قصة. أو ، إصدار شعبيّة

الآن إن فقط هذا ترجمة موقعة استطاع كنت سمة يضاف إلى ال "جواب" صندوق كعمل آليّة. كان أمنية [إي] '[بوتر] [جك yes, right between the Add Reply and Preview post button

A long time ago somebody posted a link to a site that would translate english into arabic. you could paste a few sentences at that site and they could translate what you pasted, then simply copy what they translated and past it to your post. this site should have a permanent link to such a site as that translation page

The hard work of pulling out weeds is underway. Excerpt from the blogger "Iraq the Model" Thursday, May 26, 2005 News update. At this moment, there's a press conference for the ministers of defense and interior in Baghdad and they're shedding light on a new security campaign called "The Thunderbolt" they mentioned that the campaign will focus on securing Baghdad and eliminating terror activities through "exceptional" security measures. The ministers announced that this "huge campaign" will include the deployment of 40,000* Iraqi police and army men. The 1st phase of the campaign shall be launched next week and a "powerful ring" of security forces will be created around Baghdad. The minister of interior added more details; Baghdad will be divided into two sectors; western and eastern sectors and each sector will in turn be divided into a number of sub-sectors (7 in the east and 15 in the west) I guess this is because the western part is larger in size and relatively witnessing higher rates of violence. "There will be 675 fixed checkpoints distributed all over the city as well as hundreds of mobile patrols" said the minister of interior. Answering a question from a reporter about if this campaign is going to be limited to Baghdad only, the minister of defense said "We intend to start working on securing Baghdad next week and we have plans to expand the operations soon after to deal with the terrorists in all other cities". He also confirmed that contacts were made with the ministry of justice which promised to provide a sufficient number of judges and interrogators to interrogate the expected detainees and to put them on trial when enough evidence are found. The minister of interior also gave a short briefing on the latest achievements of the operations carried out by the Iraqi forces between May 22 and May 26; he said that 578* suspects were arrested in Abu Ghraib, 4 large caches of weapons found, 118 vehicles prepared for car-bomb attacks were destroyed (between April 15 and May 26*) and 6 million dollars confiscated when a terror cell was arrested in Baghdad. The last defense minister's last words were "it's time to move from defense to offense". Well, I cannot agree more. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ This must be a turning point for the Iraqi government as this "purge" must not fail. The next step can't be delayed any longer. As posted earlier ; I cannot agree more with the Iranianhardliner newspaper at this time.

Here is a comment by the Iraqi blogger, Hammorabi; Zarqawi is dead The Jordanian thug Fadhel Nazal Al-Khalayla (Zarqawi) 38 years has died. He received treatment from Arab doctors who were not very experts and lacking intensive care equipments which he needed for his puncture in the right lung. His wounds infection gets resistance to the antibiotics. He had what is called septicemia which is according to doctors an infection of the blood resulted from infected wound. Zarqawi's systems started to fail including his kidney and liver. He died and now in the hands of the Keepers of the badWord in its worst level. His family in Jordan preparing and expected to do Fataha (funeral for him soon). Jordan again put itself in the opposite front of the civilized world and with the terrorist. The Iraqis and all other civilised people should protest strongly against any funeral events for Zarqawi in Jordan This news verbal and is yet to be confirmed; so wait and see for now and we will get the details soon when we receive them. If any one got details please put them in comment section. http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/ It may be true.

Many Iranians have been denied the right to run for a political office. The purge continues by the hard liners as they hand pick those "best qualified" to run. The ruling clerics can't be thrown out of office as they haven't been elected to their positions. ( unless divine intervention is an acceptable reason )

Even the pro Jihadi websites are reporting Zarqawi may be dead as recent reports state he has "wounds". Most likely the "wound" reportd last month was accurate and he may be dead from the infection that followed ? Since medical treatment was a dangerous thing to attempt it seems his followers will suffer the same death if they continue to follow Zarqawi into the grave. excerpt from an article; .... .. al Qaeda members are being told that al Zarqawi had been wounded and should be prayed for. A web site announcement appears to be an attempt to prepare al Qaeda supporters for al Zarqawi's death. Because al Qaeda has invested so much in building up al Zarqawi's image and stature, his demise would be a major blow to the terrorist cause. Just admitting, on a known al Qaeda web site, that al Zarqawi was wounded, is bad PR. Al Qaeda lives and dies by its public image. In the last few months, that image has been taking a major beating throughout the Arab world. ... http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide...v=0&BeginCnt=51 Now I read that the Iraqi government is conducting a major offensive. If al Qaeda stops funding or can't communicate a deal to choose a new leader to the jihad in short time- is it possible the Jihadi's will then run from Iraq, leaving the baathists to make a seperate peace with the new government in a few months ? Can the 'host' countries afford to accept and welcome home the returning jihadi ?

We all heard stories that the US almost caught Zarqawi a few months ago. This excerpt is about what the driver said about Zarqawi's condition on Feb 20th,the day the driver was captured . Interesting comment "Zarqawi became hysterical" Coalition forces just missed capturing Zarqawi during a raid on Feb. 20, the statement noted. The raid occurred between Hit and Haditha near the Euphrates River. Zarqawi was able to escape capture as coalition forces closed in on his vehicle. But Zarqawi's driver, Abu Usama, was captured during the raid. "Zarqawi became hysterical," the driver told interrogators. "Zarqawi did not know where he was, because he demanded repeatedly 'Who lives in this area? What sub-tribe is here?'" Usama said Zarqawi then quickly grabbed his American-made rifle with one magazine and an unknown amount of U.S. dollars and escaped. He left behind his computer, pistols and more ammunition, which were all seized in the raid. Officials believe Zarqawi went back to Haditha and hid with members of local tribes who continue to provide him support and sanctuary, the MNFI statement said. .... .... ...Zarqawi relies on one terrorist commander in particular, Abu Talha of Mosul. Talha and his henchmen are responsible for the murders of hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians, the MNFI statement said. This most-wanted terrorist in Mosul has further separated himself from what many Iraqis believed to be a jihad, or holy war, by resorting to stealing cars from the local population and continuing to conduct kidnappings to fund other terrorist activities, the statement added. Some key leaders formerly within the network and some associated with Talha have become disenchanted and disgusted, the statement said, because what they believed to be a holy war actually consists of acts of murder, theft and extortion. One detainee said the network in Mosul has degraded to the point where Talha is receiving less funding from sources outside of Iraq and has to rely on theft, kidnapping and extortion to support terrorism and continue to rule Mosul by fear, .. ... An April 28 raid yielded a letter written by terrorist Abu Asim al-Qusaymi al-Yemeni. Analysts believe the letter, dated April 27, was meant for Zarqawi. Though the letter praises Zarqawi for being "a thorn in the mouth of the Americans," its main thrust addresses low morale, weakening support for the war against America, and the incompetence of many terrorist leaders operating in Iraq. "Zarqawi represents the worst aspects of the insurgency," said Alston. "He's a foreign terrorist in Iraq, killing innocent Iraqis, and trying to delay them from their chosen destiny." This is the link with more about the story; http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2005/20050506_925.html

This may just be a speculation article about al-Zarqawi. After all, the latest report suggests; 1; he may have a gunshot wound to his stomach. 2; a letter recently found questions Zarqawi's leadership and his followers have low morale. ( some even critisize him saying " Allah will punish him for his lack of heart in the fight ) 3; the speculation of a recent tape he recorded may be his parting words to his followers to keep fighting, even though he leaves them to the ever stronger and growing Iraqi army and police forces. CIA Official: "Zarqawi No Longer in Iraq" 4 May 2005-- While intelligence analysts are intently focused on the text of Abu Musab al Zarqawi's most recent 18-minute message, few are looking at the discernible change in tenor of this latest message itself. A deeper analysis – beyond pure text translation – suggests that Zarqawi's latest message to his followers has the familiar tone of a "detached pep talk" mirroring that of Osama bin Laden following his departure from Afghanistan after the bombing of Tora Bora, suggesting that Zarqawi is no longer commanding his followers from the Iraqi theater of operation, according to one beltway based CIA official familiar with Zarqawi's profile. In an "off-the-record" interview between the Northeast Intelligence Network and a CIA official Tuesday, the official stated "we don’t believe he (Zarqawi) is presently in Iraq." He added, "we have no idea where he is, but we feel strongly that he left Iraq immediately following his near-capture," referring to the close call near Ramadi, Iraq last February. "He [Zarqawi] has a strong following among the Iraqi insurgents who would have enabled his departure. He is more dangerous than bin Laden as he has the physical ability to blend in to areas without obvious or immediate recognition. Considering he had been charged by bin Laden with focusing on operations against and inside the U.S., Zarqawi could be closer to the west than people think." When asked where he thought Zarqawi could be, the official stated bluntly "we simply don’t know." "He could be in Iran, or he could even be in Mexico or Canada. Regardless, we do have solid intelligence to indicate he left Iraq." http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ more at the link but you will have to scroll down it is on the left side of the webpage

Al Jazeera: Iraq Oil Ministry sacks hundreds Iraq's Oil Ministry has sacked several hundred employees as part of a crackdown on corruption and smuggling that has cost the state billions of dollars, according to oil officials. Wednesday's move, rare in the country's public sector, comes as the new government pledges to curb cronyism and corruption and restore basic public services hit by mismanagement and sabotage. Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said around 450 workers suspected of selling petrol on the black market were fired over the past few months. "They stole petrol and were a main cause of the fuel crisis that has gripped Iraq," Jihad said by telephone from Baghdad. He said the former employees mostly worked at the pump but included managers and private operators who leased stations from the state and sold fuel on the black market instead of at subsidised prices of around one cent a litre. .... .... ... A US State Department report said the crackdown, which was started by former oil minister Thamir al-Ghadhban, was part of efforts to clean up the oil industry, which was directly under the grip of Saddam Hussien before the war. Ghadbhan has been holding handover meetings with Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, who was appointed deputy prime minister and acting oil minister last week until a political deal is reached for a permanent replacement. Ministry officials privately say Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, who headed the Oil Ministry for nine months after the US invasion in 2003, remained the strongest contender for the position, although he was not named as expected when the cabinet was sworn in on Tuesday. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C25...6AAC245D8EF.htm

A letter captured in late April was intended fo al-Zarqawi to read..... a "brief" of the article; Is muntiy and collapse only a few months away if his own people are complaining the situation is BAD ! ( they may have been 'misled' to believe the Americans wqould be gone from Iraq by now and the terrorists would be running Iraq by now U.S.: Possible letter to al-Zarqawi cites low morale BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military said Tuesday it has seized a letter from Iraqi insurgents believed to be intended for Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi complaining about low morale among followers and weakening support for the insurgency. The authenticity of the letter -- which the military said American troops found Thursday in a raid in Baghdad -- could not be independently verified. The letter -- which never refers to al-Zarqawi by name -- is written to Sheik Abu Ahmad, a name not known to be used by the militant leader or his followers. But supporters often call al-Zarqawi the Sheik or Sheik Abu Musab in letters and on Web sites. "What has happened to myself and my brothers is an unforgivable crime, but God will punish the oppressor," the letter reads. "I swear by God that you will be asked about what happened to us because you have not asked about the situation of the migrants. Morale is down and there is fatigue among mujahedeen ranks. The letter is dated April 27, the military said. ...... ... The author of the letter also "admonishes 'the Sheik' for abandoning his followers" after last year's U.S. siege on Falluja, west of Baghdad. .... ....Because of the "continuous pressure by Iraqi and [u.S.-led] coalition forces," a military statement said, al-Zarqawi has relied on his cell leaders to conduct operations while he is forced to evade being killed or captured. .... ...The author's name is Abu Asim al-Qusaymi al-Yemeni, the military statement said. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the letter reflects "a certain amount of proof that [al-Zarqawi's] influence and effectiveness is deteriorating." http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/03/...main/index.html

I have no link yet on the person who wrote this. I found it posted on another message board on another website. It's an opinion story. A very long article about the conflict in Iraq. But the current situation is actually centuries old and has little to do with the United States, Saddam or Iraqi oil. It seems to be someones personal opinion ( or a frequent reader of Middel East Research Institute web site http://memri.org/index.html ) and seems to have its focus or roots on Egyptian politics. An interesting piece of information that I ran across that I thought might be of interest to some. The guy that wrote this does not get paid by anybody. He researched it as well as other things he has written. It is long, if sound bites and buzzwords are your thing don't bother with it. He claims no copyright and has given me permission to post this. Maybe it's just one of his rants? ************************************************** ******** AN ESSAY: The root causes of the conflict between the Islamic Revolution and the Western World are rooted in an internal, long running, Middle Eastern Civil War. By Jim Willits There is a civil war going on in the Middle East over the Caliphate. The Caliphate is an unrealized united Arab Nation spanning all the lands that were previously conquered under Mohammed and his followers, stretching from Southern Spain to the edge of China; from Western Africa to South East Asia. It is the perceived dominion of Arab Islam. Its proponents are called Pan-Arabist, or Islamist, or Political Islam. It means a global nation that is united under Sharia (Islamic Religious Law). “Islamist” is to be contrasted with “Islamic.” They are not the same. Islamic means Muslim; Islamist means Political Islam, which is a political ideology. Such a nation has been a dream for hundreds of years. But it has been a pipe dream. No one has yet been strong enough to achieve it. The fighting to implement it began over five decades ago. Once established, it would be used to extend the sway of Islam from the Dar al Islam (Land of Islam) to the Dar al Harb (Land of War). This is how Muslims are taught to see the world, the Land of Islam vs. the Land of War. The Dar al Islam is currently any Muslim nation, but it wasn’t planned to be that way. The Dar al Islam was supposed to be a single nation, united. This nation was then supposed to conquer the rest of the world under the “one true religion.” And govern under Sharia. We should not be shocked that none of this sounds very familiar. For some reason it is not considered polite conversation. During the 50s, 60s, and 70s there was violent competition between the Nasserites (socialist regimes usually backed by the Russians) and the Royals; a.k.a. a struggle between Socialist secularists and the religious monarchies. The remnants of the Nasserites can are still active (Mubarak in Egypt, the PLO, the Baathists in Syria, etc). And the monarchies can still be found in such places as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait etc. The Islamists had been fighting a civil war against all of these regimes (but mainly the secularist Nasserites) for decades. Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s right hand man, is a perfect case study. Picture the video of Zawahiri that you see constantly when he was younger, in that prison cell yelling at the attending paparazzi, shaking his fists and condemning the Egyptian regime. That was their struggle. And it had nothing to do with America. Zawahiri was one of the most extreme and violent leaders, even at a young age. He was mystified, like many soon to be militants in the late fifties, by the works of extremists like Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Civil War between the Muslim Brotherhood and Socialist Nasserite Egypt was one of the typical Jihads, true Islam against Infidels, in this case, Nasser. General Gamal Abdel-Nasser had overthrown King Farouk in 1952, four years after Egypt’s loss of the 1948 war to Israel, to become president/dictator of Egypt. Nasser’s power was both mythical and iconic, that is until the 1967 Six Days’ War. When Egypt was defeated in 1967 the Jihadists were elated. Nasser was also shown to be weak just like his predecessor Farouk. It is ironic that two Israeli victories gave heart to the Jihadists. They were fighting the same men the Israelis were fighting. And Israel’s victories showed them that Nasser could be beaten too, and gave the people an indication that the Jihadists might be able to defeat him. All that was needed was a show of weakness and they had that “show” in 1967. The “Arab Street” was divided. On the one hand the Jihadists were despised along with their violently aggressive and constraining dogma. It was menacing. Almost everyone was afraid of them. On the other hand, they were fighting against the regimes that had failed the people time and again. And they were pious and committed, which was admired by the Arab man in the street. The Arab Street backs a winner. They may complain and throw their arms up but in the end they back strength. They admire strength. They have been so traumatized over these many years that they are afraid to rise up against anything unless they are convinced it will work. The Jihadists didn’t have popular support, but if they could show themselves to be dominant, the people would fall in behind them and they could gain control of the entire Middle East. Anwar Sadat followed Nasser, and he was somewhat sympathetic towards the Jihadists. He wasn’t interested in establishing a purely Islamic State, but he did let Jihadist Islam flourish and expand. It would prove to be a mistake. He saw the Nasserite Leftists as his principal danger. But ignoring the Islamic Militants would cost him his life. He thought he could quiet them by tacitly supporting them. It only served to swell their ranks and lead them to kill him. When the Islamists murdered Sadat in 1981 they also ended their free existence within a regime they hated. Sadat’s right hand man, Hosni Mubarak succeeded Sadat and crushed the militant movement. Strength returned and the Jihad was quieted. Zawahiri was jailed, as were many of his comrades. When he got out, he fled to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians as a doctor. Some may ask what any of this has to do with the USA. The answer is, virtually nothing. This was the Islamists’ civil war against other Muslims. The Infidels of that period were the Nasserites, and anyone who opposed the establishment of the Caliphate. That wouldn’t change until after Afghanistan. The Monarchies had been somewhat free from this hatred and violence since they were ostensibly already Islamic States. Add to this the fact that they were terrified and willing to pay duties to the terrorists to convince them of their patronage. But the hatred extended to them as well because they weren’t quite the exact same sort of States that the Caliphates had in mind, therefore they would some day have to be slaughtered as well. In a continuing effort to appease the blood thirst of the Jihadists, as well as for self-preservation and self-interest, the Monarchies initiated massive efforts (jihads) to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. That was the Mujahideen. The United States helped out in this effort. But we were not nearly as instrumental as many have been led to believe. Our efforts were actually miniscule in terms of finance, and logistical in terms of weapons. We did support them nonetheless. Tens of thousands of young men went to Afghanistan to fight in the jihad. Most of them were religious fanatics or criminals the monarchies wanted to get rid of. The religious fanatics had gotten out of hand even for the likes of the Wahhabist Religious Regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. But they became hardened in battle in Afghanistan, and they beat the Russians. Once the war was over, no one wanted them back. They were brutal killers before hand and now they were even worse. The Saudis abandoned them, and insisted we do the same. We weren’t in a position to support them and we didn’t really have any other use for them, so we left and came home. Many couldn’t return to their countries so they stayed in Afghanistan. But they were changed. Their self-confidence had fully developed as a result of their victory over Russia. That, coupled with their religious extremism, was made even stronger by the fierce nature of Afghanistan’s version of Islam. They came to believe they really could establish the Caliphate. If they could defeat the Soviets, then whom could they not defeat? They believed the Americans were weak, as witnessed by their inability to maintain support at home and their unwillingness to fight after Vietnam and their seeming lack of conviction in fighting the Soviets. Who could possibly prevent the Jihadists from ruling (“uniting”) all of Islam? Around the time of the Gulf War a schism occurred in the Jihad. Some believed that since the Soviets were gone, and since all the Arab target regimes were weak, (drawing strength only from Washington), that the war should be expanded to OUTSIDE the Middle East. This was controversial and many others opposed it. Men like Abdullah Azzam, a longtime mentor of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, wanted to spread the civil war globally. The argument for expanding the war outside the Middle East was that the masses (in various Middle East countries) were against them taking control. But the Jihadists believed those masses could be convinced to take up arms if the regimes could be shattered and shown to be weak and susceptible to overthrow. It was a public relations campaign. They would kill three birds with one stone. If they could show the West unwilling to protect the regimes they needed to overthrow, they would be able to enlist public support since most Arabs resented the West. This would give them an early start on conquering the West later. Enter the Gulf War. When Saddam invaded Kuwait he was beginning his move (once again) to establish his own dominance in the Middle East. (His first effort in this direction was his invasion of Iran in the early eighties.) The Jihadists were as opposed to this as the rest of the world. They (including Osama bin Laden) approached the Monarchies and told them that they would handle Saddam. They had beaten the Soviets, and they could certainly defeat Saddam. The Monarchies considered it and decided to look to the West instead. The royals correctly realized that if they backed Osama bin Laden as the tool to save Kuwait, they would be putting their own houses in the direct path of the murderous Jihadists. They knew America was far better for their self-interests than bin Laden would have been. This infuriated the Jihadists. They were incensed that the Monarchies would look to the West, and allow Infidels into the Holy Land in order to defend it. The presence of Infidels in the land of Mecca and Medina was too much to stomach. The Jihadists turned on the Monarchies at that point and added them to the ever-growing list of Hypocrites and Unbelievers (which, in reality, simply meant that they brought their attack on them into the present instead of waiting for a date in the future). The advocates for expansion of the war had won. Frustrated with not being able to enlist much public support or being able to impose Revolution, they concluded that the Regimes (and the people) would likely never fall so long as Washington was behind them. The Regimes couldn’t be shown to be weak unless Washington was shown to be weak. They believed that Washington didn’t have the stomach for real fighting; it had been demonstrated since the Vietnam War that the only thing the US had the stomach for was lobbing a few missiles and some token expeditions. “They would never interfere firmly enough to stop a revolution. They would never spill US blood to the extent it would be necessary to stop an Islamic Revolution.” If the Jihadists could show that they were the strongest horse, then they could get public support for their revolution and they would eventually win. If nothing else it would be apparent that no one was going to step in to save their enemies in the various Arab states, therefore they had better come along cheerfully or be slaughtered. By this time Afghanistan was set up as the first installation of the Caliphate. The religious students could run it while the Jihadists used it as a training base for expansion of their war. It was hardly a good location for spreading the revolution, but it was remote enough to provide safety. The entire Middle East was up for grabs if only the people could be convinced that no one could stop the movement. Even the Regimes themselves were on the fence. They couldn’t decide if they should continue to quietly pay-off the Jihadists in exchange for some level of protection or if they should actively fight them and risk overthrow. The only thing left was to see who had the Will to Win, and the determination to not be outlasted. The story doesn't end there. That's where, for America, it begins. At this point, “which US foreign policies were really egregious against Arabs or Muslims?” The attacks on American targets began in earnest in the late seventies and early eighties and stealthily added up to the point where over 800 Americans had been slaughtered by 9/11/2001. The attacks killed as few as 1, 2, 5, 17 etc. for a total of more than 300 while over 500 were killed in two major attacks, 243 in the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 and 259 in 1988 in the Pan Am 747 disaster. And then came 9/11/01 when the terrorists were able to kill 3,016 in one day. Our foreign policy up to that time had been not to over-react. History challenges those who are saying today, "America needs to rethink its Foreign Policy." Perhaps we do but not in the way they think. Al Qaeda didn't talk much about US Foreign Policy before 9/11. They only started talking about it later when it was clear that such discussions could add fuel to the fire in trying to break down US public support for a war. Osama bin Laden never did A THING for the Palestinians. He could care less about their struggle. Bin Laden had years to fight against the Israelis and what did he do during that time? Nothing. Al Qaeda training manuals were packed full of tactical information and ideological material. But none of them mentioned US Foreign Policy or contained a word about Israel. It was all about the Regimes in the Middle East. If this was about oppressive imperial history and foreign policy, then why weren't the terrorists angry at Europe? No one has done more to foul up the Middle East than the Europeans. Even the beginnings of their Jihad war were fought against Europeans (Algeria etc). So why weren't they the focus of the Jihadist angst? Because this war is not about oppressive foreign policy, it is about Islamic Revolution. All the other stuff is just spin, public relations, and posturing. It's rhetoric for the masses, who don't know any better. The militants have studied well. They understand Vietnam and the impact it had on America. They know why America lost. There are a multitude of books at Amazon.com by former KGB operatives with details of how they planted anti-US propaganda with European Leftist organizations, and anti-war groups right in the US to turn public opinion against the war. And it worked. Apparently it is easier to lash out at each other than to believe this conflict might have been something over which we have no control, and is happening for reasons that are virtually incomprehensible to us. Insanity and evil are scary enemies. We are easy targets for our own self inflicted derision and self-condemnation. The thinking of the element in the United States that says, “no war at any cost” goes something like this. “If we can convince ourselves and our fellow Americans that it's all our fault then we can stop worrying about it much sooner because we can force a ‘change in our foreign policy.’ Once we gain control of the White House it will quickly become a simple matter of convincing the terrorists that we will change. After all America’s overwhelming desire for oil is what is behind this conflict anyway.” The real reasons for this war against Islamic terrorists are apparently too submerged and complicated for many of America’s homegrown detractors to grasp. They appear to be unable to accept the possibility that this war might be more of a historical conflict than just a “need for oil” or that it is anything other than another incident that merely requires us “to change our policies.” Many Americans are having great difficulty understanding that this war isn’t about our policies toward the Middle East. It’s about an extended struggle of the ages that began between factions of the Arab world that most of us don’t recognize, and certainly didn’t cause. Any thoughts on this article from some of the newest members to this board ?

Two stories about the health of al-Zarqawi that seem to say he may have stomach wounds? IRAQ: REPORTED SIGHTING OF AL-ZARQAWI IN RAMADI HOSPITAL Baghdad, 28 April (AKI) - The Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is reported to have been seen on Wednesday at the hospital in Ramadi, which was later searched by US forces. The director of the hospital, Munam Aftan, told the Iraq-based newspaper Al-Zaman that US troops surrounded and raided the entire hospital, searching for al-Zarqawi, who is believed to be al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq. "They told me they had to search the entire hospital - Aftan explained - because they had received information saying that al-Zarqawi was here, accompanied by four Opel cars, inside of which were his bodyguards and followers." On Wednesday the Kuwaiti news agency Kuna cited local sources as saying that American soldiers had closed off the two main bridges in Ramadi, to the west of the capital Baghdad, and were carrying out major raids on both the hospital and residential neighbourhoods in the centre of the city. Two days ago al-Zarqawi's group announced that there were ongoing violent clashes in Ramadi, between US troops and militants trying to stop the raids. It also emerged this week that US forces almost caught al-Zarqawi as he tried to enter Ramadi in February. He escaped, but they did seize his computer, which contained information which is reported to have led to a number of subsequent arrests. http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=...158604584&par=0 Just an excerpt, one small point of interst, from a well known article about al Zarqawi; US at least seizes Zarqawi's laptop .... ..... Terror experts note that Zarqawi's apparent escape is a blow. His capture would not end the participation of Islamist terrorists in the Iraqi insurgency, but it would certainly demoralize them, and it would remove an energetic and creative terror figure. But the computer might contain contacts, financial information, and hard data about his relationship with Al Qaeda. "That would be solid gold [information]," says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the RAND Corp. A European intelligence official says that he is not sure Zarqawi was ever in the truck. But the information on the computer was very valuable, he confirms. Among other things, it may indicate that Zarqawi is in worse physical condition than previously believed, and taking painkillers as he recovers from a wound to his stomach. He also points out that the captured cash was in euros, not dollars, and indicates that the terror network likely maintains a functioning logistical connection with Al Qaeda's European branches. The importance of the captured Zarqawi aides is not clear. Back in February - without mentioning the near-miss of Zarqawi himself - the Iraqi government announced that a raid had captured Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, also known as Abu Qutaybah, allegedly a key Zarqawi lieutenant. Mr. Qutaybah arranged for transportation and safehouses, and moved money and equipment around the country for the Zarqawi network, according to the Iraqi government. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0427/p03s01-woiq.html?s=t5 About the large amount of Euros Those bank notes have serial numbers on them. The notes can be traced back to their bank of origin. The money trail can be followed to bank clearing houses that may not necessarily be in Europe but rather, located in the middle east.