One of the most transparent and persistent lies of the Iraq War is that Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Ayman al-Zawahiri sent a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2005, telling Zarqawi to chill out with the sectarian warfare against Shi’ites and also stressing how great the American war effort was going. You can read an alleged transcript of this letter at Global Security.org. When you open the letter, you’ll see this at the top:
Translated version of a letter between two senior al Qa’ida leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that was obtained during counterterrorism operations in Iraq. The letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi is dated July 9, 2005. The contents were released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on October 11, 2005, only after assurances that no ongoing intelligence or military operations would be affected by making this document public.
If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the letter, you’ll see that Zawahiri signs off by writing this (emphasis mine):
My greetings to all the loved ones and please give me news of Karem and the rest of the folks I know, and especially:
By God, if by chance you’re going to Fallujah, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
In closing, I ask God entrust you all with His guardianship, providence and protection, and bless you all in your families, possessions and offspring and protect them from all evil and that He delight you all with them in this world and the next world, and that He bestow upon us and you all the victory that he promised his servants the Believers, and that He strengthen for us our religion which He has sanctioned for us, and that He make us safe after our fear.Peace, God’s blessings and mercy to you.
Your loving brother
Abu Muhammad
Abu Muhammed just means ‘father of Muhammad’ which probably applies to more than half of all Muslim fathers in the Arab world. It is customary, although not necessary, to name your first born son ‘Muhammad’. So, Abu Muhammad could very well be Ayman al-Zawahiri. And Zawahiri is known to use numerous aliases. But this letter was obviously not written to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because whoever the intended recipient was is told to give a big old hello to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if he happens to run into him in Falluja. That’s basic unassailable logic. You don’t write a letter to your Mom that says ‘say hello to Mom if you see her in Denver.’
At the time this letter was released CNN noted drily:
Others cite instances of bad grammar, a plea for money by the author to send 100,000 (it doesn’t say what), and the almost-chatty mention that he is the father of a new daughter named Nawwar, as out of character for al-Zawahiri.
And even though the letter is supposed to be addressed to al-Zarqawi, the last line says, “By God, if by chance you’re going to Fallujah, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” another puzzling inconsistency.
Puzzling? The only thing puzzling is why the Director of National Intelligence had the gall to tell us that this letter was addressed to Zarqawi in the first place when it is such a transparent lie. CNN didn’t have the balls to come out and say that. The explanation was easier to find in foreign press like the Sydney Morning Herald, which reported on April 11, 2006 (emphasis mine):
THE US military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program.
The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush Administration tie the war to the organisation responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The documents say that the US campaign aims to turn Iraqis against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, by playing on their perceived dislike of foreigners. US authorities claim some success with the effort, noting that some tribal Iraqi insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists.
For the past two years US military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicise Zarqawi’s role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the “US home audience” as a target of a broader propaganda campaign.
This wasn’t a sophisticated psychological operation. For two years Zarqawi was blamed for every bomb that went off in Iraq. It was obvious to almost anyone that was paying close attention and understood the Middle East even a little, that the Pentagon was dumbing down the conflict and personalizing the civil war onto a composite semi-fictional personality. They even called his group ‘Al-Qaeda in Iraq’ to maximize domestic support for the war. I wrote about this extensively at the time, and even before documents were unearthed that corroborated my theory.
Yet, today, Tom Friedman, in writing about a supposed Iraqi backlash against radical extremists, quotes this damn Zawahiri letter as if it had not been debunked:
Oddly enough, the person who best saw this backlash coming and warned how it could backfire on Al Qaeda was Osama bin Laden’s sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri. Remember the famous letter dated July 9, 2005, that Zawahiri sent to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Zawahiri warned Zarqawi to stop murdering so many Shiites, and even Sunnis, with his campaign of suicide bombing and kidnapping.
“Many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia,” Zawahiri said in his letter.
Tom Friedman is still quoting this letter as something authentic. It’s authenticity was immediately called into question when it was released. Then we learned that the Pentagon was targeting the home audience with a psychological operation to overstate “[Zarqawi’s] importance and help the Bush Administration tie the war to the organisation responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.” And then there is the fact that the letter was clearly not written to Zarqawi, which we can learn from a plain reading of the text.
Tom Friedman, ladies and gentlemen. No credibility.
Western hero, his hands always seem ready to ‘draw’.
Edit?
At the time this letter was released CNN noted drily:
Come on! You are not giving Tom Friedman his just due. He deserves much more than wanker of the DAY. He belongs in the Wanker Hall of Fame.
they should turn one of his mansions into a Museum of Modern Wanking.
The Wanker Hall of Fame ought to give him 20 million Friedman Unit Awards!
.
Letter released bij the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on October 11, 2005 … sarcastic!
Perhaps simply a message by DoD to the civilians of Fallujah.
US bombs on Fallujah, November 2004"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’m sick of the bullshit.
Someone needs to remind Tommy that al-CIA-Duh was operation in Northern Iraq on behalf of the US and that Hussein had no control of that region.
We can also let Tommy know about who Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is.
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program “to go after” these terrorist organizations.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405B.html
I need a job like Tom Friedman’s, one in which I can just make shit up and present it as gospel truth.
why can’t I have a job like that??
wouldn’t Abu Muhammed translate as Servant of Muhammed? Which would also be a common Arab name.
link.
Abu or Um is also sometimes used to describe someone’s job or function. For example, Abu Qahwa means father of coffee, and would be used for someone who sells or serves coffee.
No. Abu Mohammad means father of Mohammad. Servant of Mohammad would be `Abd Mohammad. The name `Abdullah means servant of God. The name `Abdul Karim, for example, means servant of the Generous One, which is one of God’s many names. These are distinctly Muslim names, and a name that begins with `Abd means servant of God using one of God’s names, such as `Abdul Rahim (servant of the Compassionate One), `Abdul Rahman (servant of the merciful one), `Abdul Salam, etc.
No one would EVER be named servant of Mohammad or servant of any person – not sure it would be exactly sacrilegious, but it makes no sense. Mohammad was a human being, not a divine or sacred being, and he is revered, but not worshiped. Considering Mohammad, who was a great leader, but in fact merely a man, a divine or sacred being and worshiping him would be sacrilegious.
It is standard practice in the Arab-speaking world to call someone by the name of their first child, and if they have a son, generally, though not always, it will be their first son. So, a man whose first son is named, for example, Khalid would be Abu Khalid, and the mother of Khalid would be called Um Khalid. (And by the way, Khalid is not pronounced KuhLEED. The emphasis is on the first syllable, and the second syllable is pronounced just as it is spelled, like the English word lid. KHAlid, or if you cannot manage the kh sound, KAlid is acceptable.)
For my dose of credibility today, I believe I will look to the inimitable Senator Christopher Dodd.
God, I love that guy!! (in a manly, man sort of way).