Zawahiri's Town Hall

My reply to Mudarris Jughrafiya is that we haven’t killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else. And if there is any innocent who was killed in the Mujahideen’s operations, then it was either an unintentional error, or out of necessity as in cases of al-Tatarrus [taking of human shields by the enemy]. I explained in detail the ruling concerning al-Tatarrus in the book The Healing of the Believers’ Chests and in the eighth chapter of the book The Exoneration, and the brother Abu Yahya al-Libi has a book called Al-Tatarrus in Contemporary Jihad.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets,

Right about now, you should be choking because that is exactly what these alleged "defenders of the innocent" have done over the last five years. But he justifies this by saying that:

...but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

As a reminder, no American or Jew or any other "crusader", man, woman or child is an "innocent" because we all take part in this horrendous thing called "democracy". Surprisingly, al Qaida gets that our government acts on behalf of our nation which is a representative government, so we are all responsible for the alleged war against the Muslims. As opposed to those who want to claim that the presence or lack of certain political parties in the white house or voting means they are not responsible;

AQ doesn't buy that and no amount of appeals to that idea will save you from attack. Refreshing your memory: 9/11, 3/11 Spain, 7/7 London and various other attacks. They also believe that we are not "innocent" because we choose to live in a democracy where man made laws are held above and separate from the laws of God (actually, Allah and Sharia, but why get technical). So all those atheist, anti-war folks that thinks some more "separation of church and state" will somehow end our status as "crusaders" should think again. Or, keep hiding their heads in the sand,

Finally, if you haven't been around or listened to any AQ propaganda such as Zawahiri or Bin Laden (or any other extremists), our children are equally not "innocent", regardless of their age or religion because, as noted above, they aren't the right religion, they live under man made laws and, finally, the same excuse that is given to killing Jewish children with Iranian made rockets launched from Gaza, our children will one day grow up to be, well, American "crusaders and Jews". Thus, our children are just little murderers who have to be killed before they can grow up and murder some poor, innocent Wahabi, terrorist.

People, that is not polemics. That is directly paraphrasing the great Zawahiri: justifier of everything atrocious and horrendous in humanity.

Also, apparently, we hang out at the Baghdad pet market at least three times a year along with the Baghdad book market among the various places that are allegedly full of the "enemy", making the attacks legitimate and the deaths of these Muslims "martyrs for Allah". They may indeed be "martyrs", but Al Qaida is hardly the defenders of innocents or the protectors of the Ummah.

The Crusader-Jewish propaganda claims that the Mujahideen kill the innocent, but the Muslim Ummah knows who its enemy is and who defends it.

Which is why support for Al Qaida is down across the ME and the Sunnis in al Anbar want to kill them if they see them. Check out what JD at Outside the Wire was told by the local Iraqis.

While reading Zawhiri's rationalizations I was reminded of what I heard over and over again while filming Iraqi Tribesmen who joined the Anbar Awakening .

All al Qaida offers is death and violence.

JD also noted that Zawahiri has to claim that the Americans are there and taking the Muslims hostage because he has no other defense.

“It is not hidden from you that the enemy intentionally takes up positions in the midst of the Muslims, for them to be human shields for him. And here I emphasize to my brothers the Mujahideen to beware of expanding the issue of al-Tatarrus, and to make sure that their operations targeting the enemies are regulated by the regulations of the Shari’ah and as far as possible from the Muslims.

Two really interesting concepts. Apparently, because we pursue these nasty, murderous S.O.B.s into the population that they hide in, when they decide to attack us from behind these civilians, we are taking the civilians as "human shields". Of course, I do not see Zawahiri condemning any mujihadeen for grabbing up children and old ladies, holding them in front of them or holding them hostage in the houses they are in, hoping to avoid attack. Who is the cowardly criminal in Allah's eyes?

Then Zawahiri vaguely recognizes the possibility that, yes, indeed, the "mujihadeen" might have expanded the definition of "human shields" (al Tattarus) too far. Say, like, every civilian within a 10,000 mile radius of "the Americans and Jews"? He admonishes them to attack us as far away from the Muslims as possible (is this a hidden message for future operations?).

His other justification is that any Muslims living peacefully within or cooperating with the "occupation" are no longer Muslims, but traitors and worthy of death (among the other apparent 900 million Muslims that don't agree with them).

There is a lot more of that at the Jawa Report.

I recall a recent discussion that Al Qaida's movement isn't just about its fight with the US nor even simply with the "apostate rulers" of Muslim nations, but a real argument between the multiple schools of Islamic thought. There are four in Sunni Islam and twelve in Shia Islam. Largely, al Qaida's fight is with the Sunni school's of thought because they already consider Shias heretics and apostates.

Al Qaida wants their sect or rules to be the single, over arching interpretation of Shariah, including the laws under which all Islamic states and people are ruled. They figure that they have a good chance of doing this if they separate the West (the far enemy) from the Middle East and Islamic nations and leaders (the near enemy).

Al Qaida itself continues to suffer an internal struggle over multiple aspects of their own war including whether they should fight the "far enemy" or the "near enemy" first. Zawahiri is in favor of the "far enemy" in so far as he perceives the Egyptian government only standing because of our continued support. Yet, wherever al Qaida goes and attempts to set up shop, integrating the local problems and complaints of the people into their over all mission to take over the Islamic world, they are exorbitantly drawn into the fight with the "near enemy" as in Pakistan, the struggle in Lebanon, attacks in Saudi Arabia.

Another argument that they have between themselves is what the strategic targets should be and in what order. Zawahiri, being from Egypt and a member of the Al Qaida co-opted "Islamic Jihad in Egypt", has continuously advocated for the take down of the Egyptian government and setting up the first "Islamic State" in Egypt. He stated that in his "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", "Bitter Harvest", multiple other tracks and speeches and does so even in this statement at the end:

First: yes, I undertook reviews which I mentioned in the first printing of Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as well as in the second printing, which I ask Allah to help me to release soon, but my reviews were not in the context of the investigation department’s reviews, but were in the context of developing and activating the Jihadi work in Egypt and all over the Muslim Ummah.

Second: yes, I continue to hold to my stance towards the Brothers, although I went back on some of the terms I used about them in the second printing of The Bitter Harvest. And the strongest force opposing the regime in Egypt is the Islamic movement in general and the Jihad movement in particular upon which the regime imposes the severest types of constriction and repression, while it allows others expansive freedoms because they don’t represent the biggest threat to it, and moreover, it uses them to give vent to popular Islamic pressure.

The "brothers" that he is referring to is the Muslim Brotherhood which he believes turned traitors to the cause by accepting a truce with the Egyptian government and joining in the political process. He did relent somewhat, but that is largely tactical because the Brotherhood is the biggest Islamic movement in Egypt and they have connections everywhere. They would know if Al Qaida came and started setting up shop. If Zawahiri continued to be harsh on them, they would consider him and al Qaida a threat, probably moving to interdict them and turn them into the Egyptian government. Which brings us to his attempt to mollify the brothers and those that follow them that likely asked the question:

Third: the issue of bequeathal in Egypt is under way by American decree, and the alternative is the setting up of the Islamic state. What is important isn’t to ask about stopping the bequeathal or not stopping it, but rather, is to liberate the countries from the America

Well, now it doesn't matter who or why, only that Egypt is "liberated". At least, until Al Qaida can claim responsibility, set up shop and take over the effort. See the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq and AQ's take over of that movement before subsequently being ejected.

There is much more, that's just a taste.

I might have to start agreeing with the Jawa that Adnan Gadahn is dead. Lately, all of the video releases have been extremely poor and rarely translated with subtitles while this is not even a video, but an audio recording. Zawahiri says that his security detail refuses anything else and kept him from responding more quickly. Probably because he was running around Pakistan trying to get away from the intel and tracking equipment that has helped take down so many of their leaders with pinpoint precision over the last year.

The only other complaint I have about this is how it will be reported. Frankly, Zawahiri gets a good deal from the media because he can simply release statements and never have to answer questions about them directly. Rumsfield would never have been afforded the same protections. Neither is Petraeus. Does make you go, "hmmmm."