Purported Qaeda Letter Denies Role in Iraq Blasts

[radwriter0555]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040303_133.html

March 3 — DUBAI (Reuters) - A letter purporting to come from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network denied any role in Tuesday's anti-Shi'ite Muslim explosions in Iraq and blamed the attacks that killed 185 people on the United States.

The letter, signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades with "al Qaeda" in parenthesis, was sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. A copy of the letter was obtained by Reuters Wednesday.

The newspaper has previously received similar letters from the same brigade in which they claimed responsibility for a November bombing of two synagogues in Turkey and the August bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.

"U.S. troops have committed a massacre against the innocent Shi'ite people to set sectarianism ablaze among Iraq's Muslims," the letter said.

"We, and with God as our witness, say we are innocent of this act and of anything that will drive the Shi'ites away. Our mujahideen (holy warriors) love God and his prophet and will not do anything that will harm the Iraqi people."

I said yesterday online in yahoo to a numb-nut that this was the case, on pure conjecture, and lo-andbehold, here it is... I have stated from the beginning that al queda isn't in action in iraq.

[MrPrax]

1. Robert Fisk has some observations...

A Convenient Carnage
All This Talk of Civil War, Now This

By ROBERT FISK

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

Al-Qa'ida has never uttered a threat against Shias - even though al-Qa'ida is a Sunni-only organisation. Yet for weeks, the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war, have even produced a letter said to have been written by an al-Qa'ida operative, advocating a Sunni-Shia conflict. Normally sane journalists have enthusiastically taken up this theme. Civil war.

Somehow I don't believe it. No, I don't believe the Americans were behind yesterday's carnage despite the screams of accusation by the Iraqi survivors yesterday. But I do worry about the Iraqi exile groups who think that their own actions might produce what the Americans want: a fear of civil war so intense that Iraqis will go along with any plan the United States produces for Mesopotamia.

I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim which led to half a million dead souls.
...
more
either at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=497268 (portfolio)
or
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk03022004.html

[wjittermoss]

5. Reasons for not believing the Iraq bombing was the work of al-qaeda

Remember the "intercepted" Zawari letter clearly laying out plans for attacks to ignite a "civil war." The publication of this letter was totally against previous US policy (remember how Condi Rice and the administration came out against showing tapes and letters from Osama because they might contain coded instructions to terrorists?) When they publicized this "intercepted" letter from Zawari, I thought it strange that they would do so because it did contain "coded messages" but direct instructions for terrorism. BUT IS WAS SHOWN ON ALL MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS AROUND THE CLOCK FOR AT LEAST 24 HRS.

How convenient! Now we have two deadly bombings that kill hundres of Shia Muslims at prayers and the head Shias cleric says he does not believe al-qaeda was responsible. I think he said that because he knows the situation a little better than the US soldiers there.

Notice that these bombings have always been designed (the one at the UN also) to kill everyone except US soldiers. That just does not make sense to me that al-qaeda would not be targeting US military and going after Muslims. All this is done even with some of the most sophisticated intelligence and security operations in place? I just don't buy it. This has all the earmarks of a special ops operation even using other Muslims who may have been duped into believing that they were working for al-qaeda.

What think ye?

[MrPrax]

19. I agree...

It might be top-level US-directed or it might be 'rogue' elements operating under the 'game plan'.

The 'civil war' meme has been bubbling for awhile based on the well-publizied, but not entirely true, anomosity of the two main religious factions.

Like Yugoslavia and the Congo, 'partition' seems to be the buzzword among international chessplayers. (as well as the PNAC wetdream about 'taking the Saudi out of Saudi Arabia')

Why accept the liabilities of a whole sovereign nation, when you can simply dispense with the parts that are essentially useless (just people) and keep the 'resource' parts? (The oil, fertile lands, hard wood forests, diamonds, zinc, etc)

Atomized 'service' centers are far less likely to ever be in an economic position to challenge hegemonic authority internationally--in the same way atomized communties dependent on a Wal-Mart are not likely to ever mount a successful effort to end the limitless amount of subidies that go to furnishing the 'Wal-Mart experience'.

That is why I am suspicious about the 'whole' Al-Queda thing--their platform to world domination? seems vague, counter-productive and irrational...like why attack the USA so profoundly?

Up til 911, they were attacking US military targets almost exclusively in the ME and Northern Africa...

The they start attacking innocent Americans and, now, apparantly they are killing 'good' Muslims'...it seems to fit a script, rather than a revoluntionary movement.

Hell when Osama and his 'freedom fighters' were going toe to toe with the Russkies, they never attacked targets in Moscow or anywhere else

Don't make any sense...

[wjittermoss]

2. Will this letter get as much coverage the "intercepted" Zawari letter?

I simply do not believe that Muslims would bomb Muslims on a holy day.
It sounds like a Special Ops event to me.

[bryant69]

3. Any evidence?

Other than the assessment that Muslim's wouldn't bomb Muslim's on a holy day, which, frankly, doesn't hold a lot of water for me. I certainly don't think Muslims are any more blood thirsty than the rest of us, but I don't they they are any less blood thirsty either.

As for the assessment that under Saddam's Totalitarian style rule you didn't hear a lot of religious friction that's just crazy. There have always been tensions; they were just kept down under Saddam's rule.

Bryant'
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Catholic Sensation]

4. al qaeda denied any involvement in 9-11

i'm not going to take the word of usama bin laden over any american.

[frylock]

6. al qaeda denied any involvement in 9-11..

all we have to go on is the word of our administration that "al-Qaeda" was responsible for 911. If you can provide links to hard evidence that they were responsible, please post them.

[bryant69]

7. What sort of evidence woudl be acceptable?

And how do you know that the government wouldnt' have just forged it? I mean if you are determined to believe that September 11th was the caused by the Bush Administration deliberately and they coerced litterally thousands of law enforcement officials, CIA officials, and newspaper reporters into helping them purport the falsehood that Al-Qaeda was involved than couldn't any proof I show you be just another link in the chain of falsehoods?

More to the point if the Bush Adminsitration has that kind of power that kind of unity; well than what's the point to even having a democratic underground. THey've won. All we are doing by posting here is kidding ourselves that we can make a difference, but we might more fruitfully drop all talk of politics and move on to something else. If they really had the power to do that, well, than there is no America worth saving any more.

But this conspiracy doesn't hold water to me; a plan this big would be impossible to hold together. No I think it was Radical Islamic members of Al-Queda who pulled off this attack.

Bryant

[AZCat]

8. The problem is with the term "Al-Queda"

Al-Queda isn't an organization, it's more of an umbrella group. Blaming Al-Queda for something is like blaming "terrorists" because it doesn't actually say anything. If individuals or cells involved can be identified (as the U.S. has done with 9/11), then there might be some informative conclusions drawn.

[radwriter0555]

9. Acceptable would be al queda ACCEPTING responsibility. For as much

as they're who they are, there is honor among thieves.

They take credit and responsibility for their deeds, and don't want to be blamed for what they haven't done.

[frylock]

13. exactly..

usually terrorist organizations will lay claim to an act like this. "al-Qaeda" has done just the opposite.

[radwriter0555]

17. That's right. A criminal mind wants credit where credit is due and doesn't

want to be blamed for something he didn't do.

This is especially true in, for example, in serial killers. They HATE copy cats, or being blamed for crimes they didn't commit... but really really want the stature associated with their credited kills.

Criminal minds don't vary that much in function.

[frylock]

16. why do you believe that "al-qaeda" is responsible..

again, evidence please. I'll take a look at anything you can provide with an open mind.

[radwriter0555]

10. Funny how al queda is more credible than our own regime... How sad

is that?

[bryant69]

11. Or how delusional we are

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the Bush administration and want them out of power as soon as possible. But to say that Al Queda is more believable . . . well, that's just nuts.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[radwriter0555]

18. well the bush regime is a known organization of liars. What lies has al

queda told?

Again, there is honor among thieves.

Just not in the bush regime.

[bryant69]

22. Al-Queda aren't thieves

They are murderers and killers.

You can trust them if you want to, I suppose.

[radwriter0555]

12. OBL was more CREDIBLE than any whore in the bush regime/PNAC...

the PNAC whores will stop at nothing and tell any lie they want to further their goals for planetary domination. That's completely clearly been the case since the PNAC was incepted.

WHY, after all these lies from the bush regime, do you believe THIS?

[frylock]

14. that's what kills me..

we know that buschco has lied in the past, and continues to lie on just about everything. Yet, some people are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Anybody who still believes the "official" story of 9/11 clearly has not read the PNAC manifesto.

[Catholic Sensation]

20. here is what i found on their (PNAC's) site

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

PNAC WAS responsible for the atrocity in Iraq. Not debating that. Nowhere in their "manifesto" do I see anything that leads me to believe that a group of pundits planned the attack on America.

By the way, Bill Clinton blamed Osama bin Laden for the USS Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. Was Clinton doing the work of PNACers too? It works both ways here.

And my proof? How about the fact the tape of the prick showed him admitting to being in charge of 9-11.

He didn't take credit in public for 9-11? Oh what a surprise. He didn't take credit for any of the other atrocities his group committed. All your "proof" that PNAC and Bush were solely responsible for 9-11 seems to come from tinfoil hat wearing lunatics in the mold of Bob Dornan.

If you have the audacity to blame Americans for conspiring in the September 11 attacks, then you CAN NOT legitimately get angry when the right blames liberals, because you're doing the exact same thing with the exact same amount of evidence: zero.

[frylock]

21. read between the lines..

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Habor."

As for my "audacity" to blame "Americans" for conspiring in the September 11 attacks; do a little research on Operation Northwoods. 3000 lives don't amount to jack krap when it facilitates your motive for world domination.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

[Kamika]

15. lol.. right

sad thing is that I'm sure a bunch of muslims will believe this.


Al Quaidas love for other muslims haven't stopped them from massacring muslim policemen, or blowing up tourist shops owned by muslims