« off again | Main | Six Questions »

May 15, 2007



but it's important that people in the English-language media hear him say it.

Why? Do you believe it should matter to English speaking people what this man says? Why would you be promoting that idea? Why are we (English speakers? Who are you talking about, the British, or what?) to be convinced that there is a "legitimate" side to the Sunni insurgency? We aren't ever going to believe that. If a decision has been made by US politicians and/or military officers to back portions of the insurgency, it isn't because anyone believes they are on our side, Abu Aardvark. And it isn't because anybody believes they are good people.

So, we don't really need to hear what this man has to say.

As for an American timetable "reducing the violence" - as if a Sunni Jihadist has any control over what the level of violence is going to be when the US leaves. That is laughable. Does he really believe he's going to be in any position to call the shots, with US troops gone? He's more likely to be fighting for his life. Which is fine by me. And I do support US troop withdrawal. I have since about 2 years ago when Steven Vincent was murdered.


Abu A - might this indicate Mr OBL has given the boys a scolding?


"It implores Muslims to ignore what they are hearing on the satellite television stations: the jihad in Iraq is going very well, despite all the propaganda in the air."

So if I'm reading this correctly, al-Qa'ida in Iraq is taking their message straight from the Bush Administration playbook. "We're making progress in Iraq, but our one daily bombing is being overshadowed in the liberal media by the other guy's one daily bombing."

juan spain

Hi, I'm writing from Spain, I just discovered the blog and it's really interesting. Congratulations.

I'm following your comments regarding the sunni insurgency, and is clear that defeating the ISI would be an important first step, but I see no hope unless they solve the sunni-chiite problem, how are they going to manage that? Or you think that Al Qaeda caused it?

Best regards


A few days ago I heard, I think it was the Iraqi Vice President (?) on NPR saying that the US troops needed to stay in Iraq. Can someone tell me how this fits with these other statements and how they might be related? Between the photo/conflict ban and the soldier/web site ban and the guy on NPR I get the feeling that Karen Hughes is working hard. Anybody got context?


Speaking of message manipulation, just found this on the Pentagon's plan for taking over the media in the months before the war. Has anyone appologized to that Eason guy for the attacks he suffered after saying the US was targeting reporters?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad