Andrew Hagen

Fox News has ongoing coverage. (*)

US troops have destroyed a massive illegal weapons warehouse in Fallujah, Iraq with fire from AC-130 Spectre gunships. The destruction of the Fallujah nest of terrorists is apparently now going forward. If the terrorists wish to negotiate, they will have to throw down their weapons and surrender.

Furthermore, the Coalitional Provisional Authority has repeatedly stated that al-Sadr’s illegal militia in Najaf and elsewhere will be “destroyed.”

The terrorist insurgency in Iraq is going to meet its inevitable future, its destiny: complete and abject failure to stop the rebirth of Iraq as a free nation; and the destruction of the terrorists themselves.

The only way for terrorists to survive is to quit being terrorists.

Update: 29 July 2004. Democratic VP candidate John Edwards gave a message in a speech yesterday to “al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.” (†) It’s a relief that the sentiment of destroying all the terrorists is finally becoming mainstream.

The Jordanian-born Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, the current one-legged leader of Al Qaeda operations in Iraq, is thought to have been behind an attempted chemical bomb attack on the land of his birth. It involved “a chemical bomb that would have killed as many as 20,000 people and caused large-scale destruction within a half-mile radius.” (*) The attack was foiled and several arrests were made.

Jordanian officials say the arrests occurred after suspected militants entered Jordan from neighboring Syria in at least three vehicles filled with explosives, detonators and raw material to be used in bomb-making.

Syrian officials have denied the claims.

Among those arrested last week were two Palestinian militants identified as Suleiman Darweesh and Muwafaq Adwan, thought to be close associates of al-Zarqawi.

Another Palestinian militant, Azmi al-Jayoussi, is thought to be at large.

There is no word on whether the bomb itself was discovered or analyzed. Perhaps its origin could be traced.

Syria had chemical WMD before the Iraq war began (†), but I wonder if the bomb could have come from Saddam’s stockpile.

Ten people were arrested in Manchester, England today in a raid on a group suspected of involvement with terrorism. (*)

Special branch officers confirmed they had arrested nine men and one woman. Seven addresses were targeted and seven people arrested in Greater Manchester.

Three further people were arrested in the West Midlands, Staffordshire, and South Yorkshire.

Those being questioned today are Iraqis, Kurds and north Africans.

Police said they would neither confirm not deny rumours about possible targets.

(†)

They got ten, but there are thousands of Al Qaeda operatives remaining in the UK alone.

“In the early 1990s MI5 was very slow to get to grips with al Qaida,” [ex–MI5 spy David] Shayler said in a TV interview.

“Despite repeated warnings they let in thousands of al Qaida members into this country who are all still here.

“Some of whom have gained British citizenship, which makes it very difficult to expel them.” Middlesbrough-born Shayler revealed his fears on the ITV1 Tyne Tees programme The Sunday Interview.

(‡) How can terrorist attacks be stopped if we don’t stop or at least reduce immigration?

ABCNEWS reports that a terrorist attack on the US, possibly involving “soft targets,” such as shopping malls, may be “imminent.”

The intelligence, received a week ago but secret until now, is from known Muslim extremists who suggested an attack — possibly in the U.S. — was imminent, and that operatives were already “in place,” sources tell ABCNEWS.… Sources tell ABCNEWS the information is not specific enough to raise the national threat level from yellow to orange. In addition, officials have not seen a huge surge in intelligence information.

(*)

During the summer of 2001 there had been much chatter. Then, just before 9/11 there was a lull in intelligence chatter. Since we civilians don’t have access to the data the “chatter” reports come from, we cannot rely on them for any purpose.

The ABCNEWS report is another sign that we should be vigilant and aware, as always.

I believe Osama Bin Laden is dead (*), and that the audiotape (†) was made by someone who has a voice similar to Bin Laden’s, perhaps his son’s. That would explain why Bin Laden himself no longer appears in new videotapes. In any case, the tape is clearly from Al Qaeda. It must have been approved by Zawahiri.

The man claiming to be Bin Laden in his most recent message called on European nations to enter into a “truce” with Al Qaeda. This is the infamous hudna, a strategy frequently employed by radical Muslims to offer a false peace for the purpose of fighting at a later, more opportune time. (‡) Bin Laden said that European countries can enter the “truce” anytime within 90 days. At the beginning of the message, Bin Laden mentioned the 9/11 and 3/11 (Madrid) attacks. (§)

European politicians have uniformly rejected Bin Laden’s call for a truce. (**) The message would thus represent a grave strategic mistake by Al Qaeda. On the other hand, considering that Al Qaeda’s leadership has proven itself politically nimble, such a grave mistake would be highly unusual for them. Perhaps there is another prong to their strategy.

If Al Qaeda were to successfully attack the US, Canada (a non-European country) or the UK (a close ally of the US in the Iraq campaign), that would make Bin Laden’s call for a “truce” more powerful to European nations. Such an attack would have to occur within the 90 day period. It seems likely to me that such an attack would have more effect if it were carried out earlier in the 90 day period rather than later in the period.

Bin Laden’s message thus suggests that an attack by Al Qaeda against the US, Canada, or the UK may be imminent.

Recall that Bin Laden’s message prominently mentioned 9/11 and 3/11. As has been widely reported, exactly 911 days separated 11 September 2001 and 11 March 2004. That is either a coincidence or a sign that Al Qaeda’s leadership is invested in superstitious beliefs and mysticism. I lean toward the latter. It is evidence, I think, that the dates of Al Qaeda’s major attacks are based on a numerical pattern.

Exactly 911 hours separate 3/11 and this Monday, April 19th. That is, exactly 911 hours separate midnight (12:00 AM) March 12 (the end of March 11) and midnight (12:00 AM) this Monday, April 19th. (The US, Canada, and the UK all lost an hour for daylight savings time.)

An attack this Monday would thus fall into a pattern of attacks separated by 911 units of time. Furthermore, 911 minutes into April 19th would be about 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. Another possibility would be an attack on June 11th (6/11). This would fall into a pattern of attacks on the 11th of each month that is a multiple of three.

The Arabic calendar is different than our Julian calendar. Yet in both calendars the 9/11 and 3/11 attacks were separated by 911 days. This suggests that the April 19th date is more likely. On the other hand, the 911 number seems intended to recall the 9/11 attacks. This relies on the Julian calendar, and suggests that 6/11 is more likely.

While the US practice of putting the number of the month before the number of the day (”9/11″ instead of “11/9″) is not the practice of other countries, the terrorists have made the US their top priority target. They thus may use the US practice of putting the month first.

April 19th is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. A current re-investigation into the perpetrators of that attack is underway. (††) (‡‡)

I would recommend that the US Department of Homeland Security consider raising the national threat level from orange to red, “High,” for the April 18th through April 20th period and for the June 10th through June 12th period. The current national threat level is orange, “Elevated.” (§§)

Chicago, and specifically, Sears Tower, seem to be the most likely targets in the US. With airline security improved, Al Qaeda may attempt to use a truck bomb.

For the same periods of time, Canada and the UK should be on a high state vigilance.

I believe Canada could be a target because it helped liberate Afghanistan, is friendly to the US, is a non-European country, and has lax immigration laws.

The UK could also be a target. Al Qaeda may want to make an example out of the UK in an attempt to trick other European countries into a “truce.”

Finally, one possible kind of target that Al Qaeda may hit is a mosque. That may seem counterintuitive, but Al Qaeda could blow up a mosque and plant false evidence to blame the attack on anti-Muslim bigots. This might be an attempt to win public sympathy for Al Qaeda. A mosque attack by Al Qaeda might be timed to occur soon after any April 19th attacks, for example. That would make it look like retaliation and serve Al Qaeda’s purpose of escalating the conflict. I am especially concerned about a mosque attack in the UK, because of the recent anti-multiculturalism arguments made by prominent figures in that country. (***)

Norman Geras has a pair of interesting perspectives on the current Iraq uprising. First, Geras has a long quotation from Stratfor on the real meaning behind the small faction of Shiites who are in rebellion as led by Moktada Al-Sadr (*)

Second, Geras links to the Iraqi blog the Mesopotamian. There, Alaa writes:

[Y]ou will be astonished that the solution is not as hard as you might imagine. Aggressive commitment and firmness by the Coalition coupled with a political approach to be simultaneously launched to form a government that is more convincing than the present set up, and one that can be capable of exercising real authority. The impetus of military action should be immediately and urgently used to press for the political end.

At the same time I believe that an economic offensive of labor-intensive projects should be initiated with the main objective of creating employment in economically feasible ways.

(†) Fortunately, that is what we are doing.

Many commentators have compared the current Iraq uprising to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. For those who are not aware, on 30 January 1968, North Vietnam launched a very aggressive offensive on South Vietnam. Within several weeks, the North Vietnam proxies known as the Viet Cong were totally destroyed, control of South Vietnam was fully restored, and the communists were crushed in miserable defeat. While the battlefield victory was secure, the attack was shocking to the American public. President Lyndon Johnson had told the American public that everything was going to be fine in South Vietnam. The media ran with the story. The result was psychological defeat in the midst of military victory. This psychological defeat of the US allowed the communists to eventually drive out the US and win the war. Millions were killed and enslaved because Americans were led to believe, falsely, that South Vietnam was neither defensible nor worth defending.

In contrast, nothing of the sort is occurring in Iraq. This uprising is quite small, and limited to several pockets. We have suffered some American casualties, but it is remarkable that only a few dozen American lives have been lost in the midst of this desperate shriek of an uprising.

President Bush has never said that everything was going to be fine in Iraq. He has always said the struggle will be long and difficult. The American media is running with the story, but this time the Internet and alternative news sources will give Americans all of the facts.

Inevitably, the coalition will win both on the battlefield and in the psychological struggle.

Vietnam War hero and Arizona Senator John McCain severely disagrees that the present situation is comparable to that of the Tet Offensive. (‡)

Mackubin Thomas Ownes gives a detailed historical comparison and finds the two situations very different. Moreover, he concludes:

[S]ince there is no enemy conventional force in being, anti-Coalition forces can harass the U.S. forces and inflict casualties, but they cannot prevail unless we permit them to.

(§) That accords with my basic point that if we make the effort, we will win.

Robert Alt makes several good, relevant points, especially on psychological warfare. (**)

Arnaud de Borchgrave blasts the comparison between Tet in 1968 and Iraq today. (††)

The blog Useful Fools warns against Tet Syndrome. (‡‡)

Drawing on these analyses, we can come to a conclusion. The plain fact is that our troops in Iraq have enough firepower to blow away entire cities very rapidly. The point is, we don’t want to do that. We want an Iraq different from Saddam’s version. We want a peaceful and free Iraq.

Counterinsurgency presents difficulties and challenges because it is not simple. Rest assured, however, that, the US military and our coalition partners can do the job and do it well.

We must stay the course. When we stand our ground, we win. It will not be easy, but we can and will triumph.

Updated: 12 April 2004.

David Brooks says that while we are facing some challenges in Iraq now, they are not anything that we can’t overcome. Brooks writes:

Maybe we should calm down a bit. I’ve spent the last few days talking with people who’ve spent much of their careers studying and working in this region. We’re at a perilous moment in Iraqi history, but the situation is not collapsing. We’re in the middle of a battle. It’s a battle against people who vehemently oppose a democratic Iraq. The task is to crush those enemies without making life impossible for those who fundamentally want what we want.

(*) Everyone needs to hear that.

We are facing difficulties in Iraq. We are not facing disaster.

The coalition military efforts in Iraq have long been in the counterinsurgency phase. In this phase, using overwhelming firepower is counterproductive. Negotiating without threatening force is also counterproductive. We are in a middle ground. It’s tricky, but the US military and our allies are capable of handling the problem.

The defeat of this uprising will not happen overnight. It may take several weeks or even longer.

The doom of the terrorists, insurgents, and Baathist holdouts is clear. They must either give up or be killed.

We should all remain calm and focused.

The media is making the uprising in Iraq look like a huge offensive that could somehow succeed. While that is a desperate lie told by desperate people, the American people are starting to believe it. (*)

So where is President Bush? Apparently he is on vacation on his ranch.

Could he please be bothered to take a step out of doors and speak to the cameras to reassure the American public?

Update. The presidential weekend radio address was on the subject of Iraq. I would like to see him make a statement for television cameras, though, as that would reach more people.

The radio address is online. (†)

This week in Iraq, our coalition forces have faced challenges, and taken the fight to the enemy. And our offensive will continue in the weeks ahead.

As the June 30th date for Iraqi sovereignty draws near, a small faction is attempting to derail Iraqi democracy and seize power.…

From the first days of the war on terror, I said our nation would face periods of struggle and testing. As the June 30th transition approaches, we will continue to see a test of wills between the enemies of freedom and its defenders. We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle.

That’s good, but it could be better.

Update: 12 April 2004. President Bush gave brief televised remarks to reporters the day after I posted this. That is good. Now he has announced a full-fledged press conference for Tuesday evening (tomorrow). It will give the president a chance to reassure the public and shore up his support.

Al Qaeda’s purported “key ideologist,” Lewis Atiyyatullah, makes some bold statements.

[T]he balance of power will change; the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state.

And all of that will occur within a few years — maybe a few decades.

(*) (†) He continues.

Al-Qa’ida does not wage wars similar to other wars…Al-Qa’ida is completely willing to sustain the war for many years…The war will be won by the side which will be able to bear the pain longer.”

‘Atiyyatullah finds it difficult to understand how it is that the West has not yet admitted its defeat. His explanation and analysis is as follows: The West suffers from a grave problem. This problem originates from its long-time superiority in many domains including army, politics, intelligence, and economics. This superiority, says ‘Atiyyatullah, made the West think all the rest were inferior, stupid. That is why the West is now suffering from cultural and strategic confusion. That is also why it cannot admit to its defeat, and persists in seeing it as a mere security problem, which can be solved by international cooperation.

The West will eventually realize its mistake, but it will be to late, says the ideologist. “The West will not understand that its dominance is effectively defeated, until the U.S. will suffer a second attack.” Only then will the Muslim people also understand that they have the capability to win over the West.…

Atiyyatullah states Al Qaeda’s goals. They are

no major obstacles in the way of the organization to achieving its strategic aims: breaking the existing world order, uprooting Western dominance in the world and bringing the Muslim world to its… position as the world’s leading power.

(emphasis added)

The rest of his words are vile attempts at psychological warfare.

We hear a lot of blowhards in the media talking about how Al Qaeda just wants the US to leave the Middle East, or do some other thing that sounds reasonable, and then we can all be friends. What a sick joke.

Now we have another example of sound proof that Al Qaeda’s objective is the same as that of radical Islam: the total subjugation and enslavement of the entire world, starting with the United States.

And the feminists are against the war.

Wake up.

We need to figure out why the West has lost the initiative in the war. The obvious answer is our open borders immigration policy. We allow millions of people into our country who are potential recruits for terrorists. Until we fix that problem, we will continue to leave ourselves open to being stabbed in the back as we were on 9/11. Once we fix it, all our other victories in the war will start coming together, and so the tables will be turned on the terrorists.

For unlike what our fearless leaders and experts tell us, victory is not assured.

We can win. It will require sacrifice on our part, and, importantly, the end of our willful ignorance of the Enemy. If we put our full efforts into victory, we will defeat the terror menace. Our fate is in our hands.

Informative, unbiased, and accurate reports on what is happening in Iraq can be found at the following sites.

Coalition Provisional Authority. (*)

Defenselink. (†)

Defend America. (‡)

MEMRI offers its translation of an interview with Salman Mashala, an Arab intellectual. He considers the importance of the fact that upwards of 80% of the Arab world are illiterate. “[T]he war on fundamentalism cannot come out of ignorance; it must come out of knowledge – and the Arab world today, as it is, is a world of ignorance.” (*)

It would be difficult to underestimate the significance of such levels of illiteracy in the war against radical Islamism.

The Left frequently, uselessly blames terrorism on poverty, but they would make a very good point to blame it on illiteracy.

Couldn’t foreign aid to Muslim countries be predicated on the condition that a certain percentage of it be used for literacy programs? I would think so.

Updated for clarity.

I am sick and tired of the partisan games played by the Democrats and Republicans, especially as they concern the national security of the United States.

The hearings held by the commission investigating 9/11 are important. Condoleeza Rice testified in public session today. She had interesting things to say, as did other witnesses, such as Richard Clarke.

What galls me is the applause. When a Democratic member of the panel made a strong point against what Dr Rice was saying, some citizens who were in attendance applauded. That is atrocious. I realize that 9/11 is highly emotional for everyone, and more so for some.

What could possibly cause an American citizen, however, to applaud in such a situation? The commission is supposed to find out how to prevent another 9/11. It was never meant to devolve into the rancid diversion of political point scoring.

Our country’s national security is not a game.

It was not just opponents of Dr Rice and the Bush Administration who applauded. Those who were apparently “on the other side” would applaud when Dr Rice made a strong rebuttal of something a Democratic commission member said. This spectacle is something I find totally unfathomable, bizarre, and fully deserving of the sternest rebuke.

Do they not realize the survival of our country is at stake?

These citizens who applaud the costly mistakes of the government because they may redound against a certain political party, depending on the specific mistake, and who run to sow strife among their countrymen at a time of war and national peril ought to be mortified at their behavior and deeply ashamed. Those mistakes cost over 3,000 American lives on the eleventh of September 2001. Those mistakes have allowed the terrorists much success and momentum in many regions of the world, and they have led to the necessary sacrifice of many young American lives on battlefields around the globe.

A virtuous love of country does not demand that one belong to a certain political party or outlook. True patriotism does require, however, that one’s loyalty to party always remain subservient to one’s loyalty to country.

I am livid that many Republicans used the Monica Lewinsky affair to limit the foreign policy of President Clinton. Perhaps Bill Clinton would never have ordered a pre–9/11 invasion of Afghanistan even if it enjoyed bipartisan support. We will never know, however, if the worst day in American history could have been prevented if Clinton were allowed to act as the Commander-in-Chief. Yes, he made a mistake, but the price of Monica should never have been the security of our country.

Rather than that being a mistake in the past, however, the partisanship continues. Last year President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier on a Navy jet. He strutted around the carrier in a flight suit underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner. As a former fighter pilot, the president was not out of his element. Using the military as a prop for his political campaign, however, was both absurd and revealing of over-the-line partisanship.

I am livid that many Democrats seem more interested in beating George W Bush in November than beating terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan today. There are a number of sound criticisms against President Bush, but those on foreign policy especially have all too often been phrased not as constructive criticism, but as rancid partisan jabs. For example, Ted Kennedy said “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” (*) Then, no doubt, there was applause. I am appalled.

Do the applauders, does Ted Kennedy not realize that if Iraq turns into a Vietnam, it is not one controversial political figure, Bush, whose fortunes will suffer, but instead the fortunes of our entire country? What citizen could applaud such a thing? Citizens who criticize Iraq policy should do so in a manner that displays a love of country in excess of the love of any political party.

The poison of partisanship between Democrats and Republicans goes back decades. There is no conceivable method of rectifying every old wrong. No one knows how to compensate the Republican Party for JFK’s ballot box stuffing in 1960 or the Democratic Party for Nixon’s dirty tricks in 1972. When it comes to foreign policy and national security, politics must simply stop at the water’s edge regardless of what happened in the past. In the 21st century, even homeland security must become a bipartisan issue. Honest criticism and suggestions must be voiced in a constructive manner.

I do not know quite how to end the partisan battles over issues of foreign policy and national security that continue between Democrat and Republican, and have gone on for upwards of fifty years. I only know that it must cease.

So long as the partisan gamesmanship continues, every war America fights will be another Vietnam.

Dissent will not prevent us from winning wars. Constructive criticism will not prevent us from winning wars. Statements of conscience will not prevent us from winning wars.

Active sabotage of America’s efforts abroad by large numbers of American citizens, however, will guarantee that every war we fight we will lose, and that everything we are trying to accomplish in the world today will fail, from helping AIDS victims in Africa to feeding the hungry in North Korea to promoting representative democracy, free markets, and respect for human rights everywhere.

All our endeavors will fail unless these two old parties stop, take breaths, and say what they will say constructively. Then people of honest differences must not only listen to one another, but must hear one another. Politics must stop at the water’s edge.

Otherwise go ahead and throw darts at the other side, and applaud when our country gets bombed, so long as the other party gets the blame.

Go ahead and spit on the whole idea of America, and the more perfect union this was supposed to be.

I’m sure it will all continue, and so the lives of American citizens will grow more and more endangered.

That is why I am interested in changing America’s political landscape forever. The elephant and the donkey offer nothing but intense bitterness toward each other and a shocking indifference to America. I am interested in a new political party that will take the place of one of the two major parties, relegating the other to permanent minor party status. The only way to stop this catfight is to get rid of one of the cats. The last time a major party lost its major party role was in the termination of the Whig Party in the 1800s. We are long overdue for a new major party.

The only way to effect political change in America is through the mechanism of the political party. If you want genuine political change in America, you must be willing to join a political party. Our system does not work any other way.

Citizens who love their country and who find themselves deeply dissatisfied with the Democratic and Republican parties need a new party. We need a new party that is based on America’s founding principles, and dedicated especially to that founding principle of country before party.

The Democratic and Republican parties are failing to protect our country. Now it lies with American citizens to take responsibility for the national destiny into their own hands. The time is ripe for them to form a new party.

Title updated.

The links are substantial between the Iraq-based terrorist group Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda. Both are Wahhabi radical groups tied to global terrorism.

The US State Department recently made this statement in reaffirming its designation of Ansar al-Islam as a foreign terrorist organization.

Ansar al-Islam, which operates in Iraq, has close links to and support from al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden participated in the formation and funding of the group, which has provided safehaven to al-Qaida in northeastern Iraq. Ansar al-Islam trained in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. The group has been one of the leading groups engaged in anti-Coalition terrorist attacks in Iraq.

(*) See also the original designation. (†)

Ansar al-Islam is currently led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (birth name: Ahmad Fadeel Nazzal al-Khalayleh), a Jordanian. (‡)

On 1 September 2001, two radical Kurdish groups came together in northern Iraq and Ansar al-Islam was founded. (§) It is not clear whether Zarqawi was himself present in Iraq at the time.

Jeffrey Goldberg reported in the New Yorker of 10 February 2003 that

Zarqawi is believed by European intelligence agencies to be Al Qaeda’s main specialist in chemical and biological terrorism. Zarqawi is also believed to be behind the assassination, on October 28th [2002], of an American A.I.D. official in Jordan.…

(**) Zarqawi’s chemical and biological warfare (CBW) expertise must be considered in light of the WMD justification for going to war with Saddam’s regime.

In any case, by the time of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan subsequent to 9/11, Zarqawi had made his way to Afghanistan, and there he was wounded. (††) Having limped to Iraq, Zarqawi sought safe haven and medical treatment in a country supposedly hostile to Al Qaeda, Iraq. He received both courtesy of Saddam Hussein.

As the Christian Science Monitor reported on 15 March 2002,

The group – Ansar al-Islam – emerged just days before the Sept. 11 attacks on the US. It delivered a fatwa, or manifesto, to the citizens in mountain villages against “the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural” society there, according to Kurdish party leaders.

Since, Ansar al-Islam has nearly doubled in size to 700, including Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians, and Afghans – a composition similar to the multinational Al Qaeda network. Villagers here claim it has ransacked and razed beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the burqa. It has seized a Taliban-style enclave of 4,000 civilians and several villages near the Iran border.

(‡‡) The article also points out that one of the members of Ansar al-Islam is “Mula Kreker,” also spelled “Mullah Krekar.”

Since Operation Iraqi Freedom and the liberation of the Ansar al-Islam controlled areas in Iraq, the ordinary people of the region are able to look back at their time living under the Taliban-style rule of the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on 12 September 2003.

“CDs were banned, music and songs were forbidden, picnics were banned, and you couldn’t play backgammon in the tea shops,” Mr. [Sangar] Mansour says. “We weren’t allowed to wear shorts to play soccer, and whenever they called for prayers, guards visited each house with an adult. Those who failed to go, they beat him hard.”

Iraqis here say they were shocked by the uncompromising views imposed by Ansar - a Wahhabi, and more radical Salafi, view shared mostly by the Taliban in Afghanistan, among some adherents from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Persian Gulf, and by Al Qaeda.

“I know Islam, but they created very difficult choices for people,” says Mansour, noting that he knew of 85 young men who lived for a time in hotels outside Biyara, to escape the restrictions. “This is totally unique. This behavior told us that they must be something else.”

(§§)

The aforementioned Mullah Krekar currently enjoys freedom in Norway. It was in Norway where Krekar met with Jamal Zougam “several times” according to Jean-Charles Brisard, a French lawyer. (***)

As it turns out, Zougam just happens to be a suspect in the Madrid train bombings. (†††) This constitutes another strand of evidence tying Ansar al-Islam to global terrorism. (‡‡‡)

Strangely enough, the discoveries of ricin (a lethal toxin) in the possession of terrorists in Europe in early 2003 occurred shortly after Zarqawi had paid the boys in Europe a visit. (§§§) The US tried to tell Europe that the ricin was tied to Zarqawi. (****) Europe was skeptical, however, saying the ricin looked “homemade.” (††††) Europe apparently didn’t think to ask who could have trained the terrorists in the making of deadly ricin.

The stump-legged Zarqawi (‡‡‡‡) has left his bloody fingerprints in many countries. (§§§§)

A seven-pound block of cyanide was recently found in a safe house in Iraq used by Zarqawi. (*****)

If Zarqawi’s letter to senior Al Qaeda leaders (†††††) is truthful, though, the efforts of coalition forces in Iraq is beating back Ansar al-Islam and the other networks Zarqawi runs.

There is no question that Ansar al-Islam is the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq, that it is fighting coalition forces, and that it is carrying out attacks against other countries, including Spain, for strategic purposes.