WTF? Leader of Al Qaeda Group in Iraq Was FICTIONAL-U.S. Military Admits: Actor Provided Audio Tapes

[kpete]

Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says
By Michael R. Gordon Published: July 18, 2007


BAGHDAD: For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.

As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.

On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi's ability to escape attack: He never existed.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.

more at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/18/africa/iraq.php



edit to add:

Kevin J. Bergner
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq


Brigadier General Kevin Bergner currently serves with the National Security Council staff as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/k-bergner-bio.html

[annabanana]

1. Now THAT has got to be one of the strangest stories I have ever read

SO recommended.

[speakclearly]

104. Uh....read the link....

Al Qaeda was the one who "fictionalized" the guy. They posted comments from the fictional person to give their "foreign fighters" an Iraqi face to mislead the Iraqis (who distrust the foreign jihadis).

This is an example of insurgent propaganda, not disinformation by our government. Makes you wonder about the other claims and reports posted on insurgent web sites.

The US intel and the military get enough things wrong already. Don't blame this one on them. Take a look at who really is peddling misinformation in this case. You might distrust the Administration, but you can usually have faith in your military and the soldiers (our sons and daughters and siblings) who serve to defend us all (unless Congress sends them out on an impossible mission).

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1644418,00.html

[dickbearton]

133. Think clearly before you speak...

Don't blame the institution, Congress, that should read:
(unless Bush and the Republicans send them out on an
impossible mission).

[Marr]

161. "Unless Congress sends them out on an impossible mission?"

Bush owns this mess. I guess all that "personal responsibility" bullshit is just for other people, eh?

[bjobotts]

114. Neocons created Bin Ladden...watch the "Power of Nightmares"..google it

Create permanent war with a permanent enemy (aliens don't count),then power is given to you. War profiteering means we need terrorists to cover stealing the resources of other countries. Just keep 'em talking all day about terrorists to keep 'em busy while we steal the gold and oil. Then cover it all by putting it under the label of, "Protecting American Interests Abroad". The neocon play book.

Remember when we regulated capitalism, before we let it get out of control with greed and profit, when we used to buy and trade for the resources of others. War equipment is just too profitable to throw away on ...peace. Remember what Bush said..."Money trumps...uh...peace, hee-hee...sometimes". Now called e-coli conservatives.

[Flatulo]

136. Bin Laden was created during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

We (the US/CIA) used him with great success to fight a proxy war with the Soviets.

More proof (if you needed it) of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[defendandprotect]

148. Actually, we BAITED the Russians into Afghanistan . . . "in hopes of giving them . . .

a Vietnam type of experience."!!!

We went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians were there --
trying to bait them in.

This story is told by Brz -- whose name I can't recall at the moment --
worked under President Carter --
Wrote a book called .... "the Chess game"?

[Flatulo]

150. I wasn't aware of that... do you have a link?

and I think you are referring to Zbigneiw Brzezinski?

[LanternWaste]

162. Can you cite a source (or even a link) to this?

"we BAITED the Russians into Afghanistan"

Never heard that one asserted before. Can you cite a source (or even a link) to this?

On edit: Did a search on the little info you provided and didn't come up with anything...

[jgraz]

2. Off to the greatest page with ye

I don't believe it! The US Military would NEVER falsify intelligence!!!

[IChing]

18. I saw that story of that guy on Dr. Phil

or was it Opra?


No it was in the dudgeon
of DU.......thanks DU for PRESS FOR TRUTH!!!!

[SpiralHawk]

3. republicon crony propaganda for a phony needless Oil Profits Crusade

Bush and his cabal of corrupt republicon cronies are the worst thing that ever happened to America and planet earth.

[spirit of wine]

4. Bush clan Spending Thanksgiving this year in...

Lovely Paraguay! I Bet anything after George, I call him George, leaves the WH either willingly or by force, he and many of his family members are going to be so hated by that time that only Paraguay will accept him, as odd as that might be.
I know this is a bit old, but still.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1928928,00.html

[sam sarrha]

5. so how mich did this Reich Wing Bull Shit cost the tax payers. this smells of Carl Rove

[Auntie Bush]

121. Right you are! Smells just like shit and Rove smells like shit too. Pew!

[smoogatz]

6. So you have to wonder--

how much they're paying the guy who plays Osama in all those tapes and videos.

[glitch]

7. So what else is fictional? Or a better question, what IS true with these guys?

Take all the time you need.

[sam sarrha]

128. true.. maybe they are on KKKarl Roves payrol..??

[stillcool]

8. Propaganda 101...

but on whose side? The author...Michael R. Gordon maybe another Judith Miller reporter for the Times. Glenn Greenwald has a long article featuring this reporter.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/02/gordon/index.html?source=rss
Monday July 2, 2007 07:30 EST
Michael Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran

(Updated below - Update II - Update III)

The Bush administration's most reliable pro-surge "reporter," Michael Gordon of The New York Times, this morning filed an article -- headlined: "U.S. Ties Iranians to Iraq Attack That Killed G.I.'s" -- that might be the most war-fueling article yet with regard to Iran. Gordon's article is 23 paragraphs long, and makes some of the most inflammatory accusations against Iran imaginable (see Update II below). This is the first paragraph:.......................................................


It is certainly news that the U.S. military is making such accusations. But the crux of Gordon's article is not to report that -- i.e., that the U.S. military has escalated its rhetoric. The purpose of the article is to pass on the substance of those accusations uncritically, as though they are facts.

Gordon, as is his wont, does not question a single statement that he conveys, does not include a single dissenting view, does not provide a single reason to hold such assertions in doubt, does not obtain or include any responses to the accusations, does not identify any evidentiary gaps in the accusations. Instead, the article does nothing but magically transform the highly provocative yet unverified statements of military leaders into "news" on the pages of The New York Times. Again, read the article carefully -- is there even a single sentence that advances beyond the role of loyal court stenographer to Gen. Bergner?

The context here matters a great deal. We're in an extremely tense and dangerous predicament with regard to Iran. Influential political factions in the U.S. -- including high officials in the White House -- have begun expressly calling for a bombing campaign against Iran. Accusations of the type Gordon passed on this morning have the potential, for painfully obvious reasons, to be highly inflammatory in shaping public opinion and enabling the warmongering elements of the administration and its base to "justify" such an attack. Indeed, if the Supreme Leader of Iran is planning and directing fatal attacks on U.S. troops --as Gordon's article alleges -- how many people would object to a military attack against Iran?

Under those circumstances, how can the NYT possibly justify an article of this magnitude, published without an iota of skepticism, doubt, or qualification? This behavior is particularly mystifying in light of the NYT's prior concession of journalistic wrongdoing, in which it castigated itself for uncritically turning over its front page to dubious pro-war claims prior to the invasion of Iraq, including in several articles by Gordon:................
-- Glenn Greenwald

[KT2000]

9. How many times have they killed

Al Qaeda's #2 man??
I wonder if anyone except the hopeless 25% believe those stories any more.
Now that they have an actual actor - this is just bizarre - these people are completely delusional.

[Amonester]

84. Substitute the word "delusional" with the word "criminal" because...

that's what they Really R, in reality.

True words matter.

[Flatulo]

10. Did you guys actually read the article?

It goes on to say that the ruse was perpetrated by al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, not the US Military.

"The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements."

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Bin Laden and Bush have a symbiotic relationship

The US believed that an actor was a real character for the same reason that Republican presidential candidates consider tv character Jack Bauer a role model. They're idiots who look for validation everywhere.

[frogcycle]

25. hell lots of people still believe

Reagan was actually the president

[tridim]

13. Maybe, but remember those Navy guys who put up the "MIssion Accomplished" banner?

Never forget that BushCo lies about EVERYTHING.

Baghdadi? Come on. :eyes:

[TechBear_Seattle]

56. al Baghdadi is a perfectly valid name in Arabic

Al Baghdadi simply means, "the person from Baghdad." It is nearly identical to the German construct JFK used to call himself a jelly doughnut. Sorry, I meant a person from Berlin.

(Those who did not get the joke, read this.

[glitch]

14. I wonder who made up Al Queda in Mesopotamia - Al Queda in Provence?

Or maybe it was Al Queda in the Canary Islands. Just spitballin' here.

[SaveAmerica]

30. I know, I thought it was bad enough when they started going on about

'al queda in Iraq', watch out for Al Queda - the Bronx.

[glitch]

38. That's the problem when you lie, nobody believes you on anything.

Most 5-year-olds learn this but somehow the lesson missed the members of the Bush Administration.

[peacetalksforall]

58. Al Queda of Midway Island.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. It still means something...

The Administration has been proclaiming for years how they've killed or captured 75% of Al Queda's leadership. Turns out that they didn't even know one of the leaders was a fake. So how could Bush have any credibility as to his claims of success? They were simply pulling numbers out of their butt, and considering those numbers were produced in the course of a congressional hearing, it would be perjury.

[Flatulo]

48. I honestly don't know what you folks want.

There are violent Jihadists out there who want to kill Westerners. I know there are some, perhaps many, here who do not believe this. Don't listen to the Administration on this - listen to what these loonies themeselves say. I encourage you to do your own research rather than simply closing your minds and wagging your conspiracy fingers.

If by due diligence some of you are able to ascertain that there is a threat, next ask yourself what the response should be.

Many here have criticized the Administration for not capturing or killing bin Laden. Fine, so at least that implies that he is someone who needs to be killed. We're making progress. Besides, Clinton attacked Afghan training camps, and I don't think many here blasted that action, so we have precedence for the justification.

Yet when the military reports that they *have* killed a senior terror leader, I see nothing but mockery and chants of 'gee, we killed the #2 guy five times now'. Can you really be so ignorant? Just like in other organizations, when a leader gets offed, someone steps in to replace him. Savvy?

I know, and I'm sure that most of you feel the same way, that invading Iraq was a really, really stupid idea. But many here (hopefully) still feel that military action in Afghanistan was necessary to clear out a swamp of avowed Jihadists who are determined to strike Western interests.

Many brave Americans and other Nato troops are risking their lives every day to kill or capture those who want a very strict and fundamentalist strain of Islam to rule the world and are willing to use violence to achieve their goals. Does it really give you vicarious pleasure to mock the efforts of those who are actually fighting this battle?

I know your mockery is directed at the Administration, but you can't have it both ways. When Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11, you assailed him as being incompetent at best, or complicit at worst.

Now that there is a concerted effort to deal with the problem, you mock any progress whatsoever.

So I ask you, how would you do better?

[treestar]

52. How afraid are you of these people?

And just what should be done about it? Should our lives revolve around this particular threat, to the exclusion of others that may have a greater chance of happening?

Sure there are jihadists who want to destroy America. But in perspective, what are their odds of actually doing so? They can't. They're just nuts. There are nuts of other kinds (that we may never had heard about) and nuts that live amongst us and would destroy America for other reasons (though even they have no chance of actually doing it - far more dangerous is the Administration's attack on the Constitution).

The point was about propaganda. In the face of a real threat, propaganda would not be necessary.

Your use of language indicates to me you're a right winger - "ask yourself" is a verbal tick for libertarians and Ayn Rand followers. Your first paragraph is loaded with langauge and phraseaology of right wingers - I know because I've seen it from avowed right wingers often.

[Flatulo]

72. You guys play a rigged game

You cannot lose.

If there is no terror attack, you cry "How dare they make us afraid"

If there is an attack, you cry "The Administration is incompetent"

If there are no terrorists, you cry "Boogeymen"

If there are terrorists, you cry "Why can't these incompentents catch them? Conspiracy!"

Congratulations on your amazing powers of prescience. You are never wrong.

By the way, don't you think labels are a litte inadequate to fully capture a person's positions on all the issues? I do.

[blondeatlast]

91. YOU guys. nt

[Capn Sunshine]

105. There have always been terrorists

what differentiates us is how we relate to them. My forebears were practical and certainly took care when traveling on roads in Old California where comancheros and revolutionaries were known to hijack and kidnap.

Later, when I found myself traveling in the backwoods of Idaho near the Canadian border, I knew there were gun running anti-government freaks running around up there, but I didn't not go fishing, and I carried a sidearm.

My relatives didn't stop traveling, and they didn't give over their lives and fortunes to "stay safe". These characters have always been in our lives. They only gain power over you when you change your life to accommodate them.

I remember my aunt talking about those sneaky commies and their sleeper cells in the 50's. I'll bet you'd be right at home with them.

[slampoet]

118. You guys? What Guys? Black guys? Non-freepers?

[Flatulo]

137. 'You guys' are people who pile on with the propaganda stuff w/o

even having read the article.

Learn to read and comprehend and you won't get posts questioning your critical thinking skills.

And Sweet Jeezus, who the hell do you think you are to obliquely imply a rascist tone to my post? You sir, or madam, have a lot of chutzpuh.

[treestar]

129. Yes, you can lose

If there is no terror attack, you cry "How dare they make us afraid"

If there is an attack, you cry "The Administration is incompetent"

<<< Ergo, your whines are false - you know that if there is no terror attack, you will give Bushco credit and that if there is, you will blame the democrats>>>

If there are no terrorists, you cry "Boogeymen"

<<<What? This makes no sense. You are the ones claiming there is a Boogeyman.>>>

If there are terrorists, you cry "Why can't these incompentents catch them? Conspiracy!"

<<<-There are no terrorists - you're making them up or exagerating them. When you make propaganda for them, they would be incompetent not to catch them per the propaganda you set forth. Ask yourself, it these terrorists existed, why wouldn't the government get them? >>>

[Flatulo]

154. Aww, you saw right through me...

And I thought I had such depth and complexity.

OK, to start, I didn't say we should be afraid all the time. I said threats are real. It is up to individuals to determine their own response. Personally, I don't think about terrorist attack at all.

However, I see a strong tendancy among some on DU to treat the whole terror problem as a huge propaganda construct of the Bush administration, whose sole purpose is to rob us of our Precious Bodily Fluids or some such sinister plan.

These same people will, in the next breath, defend the Clinton administration response to bin Laden al-Qaeda... but wait, I thought they didn't really exist... aww, now I'm all confused.

But that's all neither here nor there. My initial response to the OP was to point out thaatthis was in fact not a propoganda piece at all, and in fact is pretty much a non-story. Readers saw 'admit' and 'al Qaeda' in the title and jumped to the conclusion that there was some Bushco subterfuge going on. Without even reading the article. Wierd.

Finally, you accuse me of being a right-winger. You use of pop-psychology and keywords to capture the essence of me is laughable. Does 'left winger' completely describe you? Are you that simple?

Please, go psychobabble-analyze someone else. You know nothing about me. Nothing.

[frylock]

53. what's your point exactly?

This thread is about a fictitious leader of al-Qaeda, and you can't understand why we would question anything and EVERYTHING this administration tells us? Where the FUCK have you been? What does this admission have to do with supposed efforts to curtail terrorism?

[Flatulo]

73. Have you read the whole article yet?

If and when you do, my post should be clear.

[frylock]

85. the gist is that dod and the intelligence agencies were duped..

Wow... really. How many other recordings have been faked? How has our govt reacted to these recordings? Is the bin Laden tape for real? What, exactly, am I to believe? You apparently have the answers. Please, enlighten us.

[Flatulo]

95. Did I say I have the answers? I missed that.

The OP title was misleading.

The military announced that they got fooled. That is not propaganda. Propoganada is misinformation that bolsters your position, not an announcement that you got duped. Announcing that you got duped is just ... announcing that you got duped.

The replys to the OP were the standard DU conclusion-leap that Bushco was trying to pull ... something ... off again.

I merely questioned the response of the people here who have a conspiracy hair-trigger.

Sometimes information is just information.

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. Unless, of course, the misinformation is that they were duped.

If they knew all along, and only now revealed it because it was about to be exposed by someone else, who is being duped?

The fact is, both AQ AND the administration have a vested interest in having an Iraqi face on Al Queda in Iraq - AQ, because Iraqis don't trust foreign jihadis; and the administration because it means that AQ is the enemy, not local insurgents who only want the US out of there. They're fighting them in Iraq so they don't have to fight them in Pakistan.

[Flatulo]

139. I suppose that's possible...

> The fact is, both AQ AND the administration have a vested interest in having an Iraqi face on Al Queda in
> Iraq - AQ, because Iraqis don't trust foreign jihadis; and the administration because it means that AQ is
> the enemy, not local insurgents who only want the US out of there

I agree with the first part of this premise, but not the second. The Administration admits that only about 5% of the insurgency is composed of foreign fighters, and 50% of those are Saudi.

They may *wish* that there were a large Iraqi component of al-Qaeda, but the data indicates otherwise.

Bush still *says* that we're over there fighting the people that attacked us on 9/11, but absolutely no one believes him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. And yet, every battle is described as with 'Al Queda forces'.

Our government is propagandizing AQ's strength, making it look like they are THE problem when we know they are just a fraction of the problem. That is the spin they've chosen, and that is why they want to promulgate the myth that AQ in Iraq is an Iraqi franchise, and NOT a bunch of foreign fighters. That's why I don't beleive their 'surprise' to find out that this leader was fictional.

Our military may be stupid, but the vast majority of the men and women IN the military are not - whatever the official line, they must have known they were chasing a ghost.

[Flatulo]

151. My point is that this is not a propaganda piece.

This piece just makes us look silly. No proaganda value in that.

It should be obvious to anyone who took the time to read the article.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Tooth decay is an undeniable problem...

... but there are better ways of dealing with it than a pickaxe. Furthermore, a sibling who learns the lesson of his brothers battered dentition is likely to be skeptical of the motives of the garden-implement wielding "dentist".

We are not making "progress" in the mideast. The war(s) are creating more of what they were intended to combat. The progress that is being claimed is a unending stream of number two's across tv screens. The most recent NIE says that Al-q (the real one) has rebuilt its capabilities on the territory of one of our allies. Now what the fuck are we gonna do?

Terror is, and always was an intelligence and law enforcement problem. The pickaxe (military) was an improper tool, which was only selected because Bush favors it.

[Flatulo]

75. I agree with you 100% and thank you for the civil reply. n/t

If the others who jumped down my throat would take 1 minute to read the article, they would understand my post.

But reading comprehensions seems to be a problem to some folks.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MindPilot]

60. that Kool-aid must taste real good.

You've obviously drank a lot of it. Here's your sign:

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

[Flatulo]

141. I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid, including DUers.

I read the article and then used my faculties to decide what it said.

This particular article stated only that a military spokesman, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, had reported that a man claiming to be the leader of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was a nom de plume.

Immediately the DU Conspiracy Corp started piling on with the usual dogma.

This story was and is, a big nothing.

[bigtree]

65. on these reports which are generated from within the Pentagon or the CIA

we have to wait for the truth to come out.

This report smells because it relies on one, supposedly 'senior' al-Qaeda member captured who the military say confessed - apparently right away since they just caught him. So they're claiming that, right away, a senior member of al-Qaeda - its membership regularly practicing acts of martyrdom - is giving operational details to his American captors. And, according to you, I'm supposed to accept this report on face value from an administration who deliberately lied to get us into Iraq and has repeatedly lied to keep our troops bogged down there.

It makes more sense to assume that there may well have been a resistance effort which was apart from the other factions in Iraq vying for position, territory, and survival and associated with elements outside of Iraq. In fact, the majority of foreign combatants in Iraq who have been identified have been Saudis. That percentage has been acknowledged by the military as representing only a fraction of the resistant violence in Iraq.

Yet, the Bush administration wants us to believe that their use of the military in Iraq, when our forces attack and suppress these Iraqi communities, are in opposition to al-Qaeda instead of against the obvious Iraqi-driven resistance to the U.S. presence and against our military forces' support of the new Iraqi regime.

The 'terrorists' that the bulk of our nation's defenses should be directed at are in Afghanistan/Pakistan, according to the government's new NIE, not in these copy-cat organizations which usually exist more on an internet site than in actuality on the ground. Yet, this report was presented by the Pentagon as an adjunct to the Bush administration's cynical defense of their use of our military to prop up the Maliki regime to, they say, defend the U.S. against the emergence and establishment of a possible 'al-Qaeda base of operations' in Iraq; denying them some sort of safe-haven.

But, we all know that it is our own foreign presence there which is fueling the violence in Iraq, not these predictable incursions of handfuls of individuals from neighboring states surrounding the nation. That interference across Iraq's borders isn't going to be assuaged at all by the continued presence of our military in Iraq; resistant violence is going to escalate right along with our own escalations of force.

So, if there's any real concern about 'terrorist' influence in Iraq, there should be a withdrawal of the U.S. foreign forces from the country, and a renewed dedication to eliminating the original and enduring fugitive source of the inspired violence which has been allowed safe haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Playing along with this Pentagon/administration propaganda just makes us dupes in their cynical information war.

[Flatulo]

142. Your post is spot on except for one thing...

There is absolutely no propaganda value to this story. Hence I take it at face value.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

76. Ah, and here's one that you might enjoy...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum10.html?gclid=CJ_k4KOJtI0CFSCTWAodiGOQ1Q

[Forrest Greene]

77. I Want Justice

The real thing, not the rich man's justice.

I'd do better by not giving every murderous crackpot in the rest of the world damn good reasons to profoundly & forever hate the actions of the United States.

I'm not interested in what "you" folks want.

[frogcycle]

86. what we want is for them to actually do what this claims they did

get the actual flesh-and-blood leadership of the organization, not fictitious ones. Get our awesome military capabilities that we have deployed in Iraq focused on the actual problem that you describe. If we need a surge it is in Afghanistan, where, as you say, many NATO troops are putting their lives on the line, and dying.

We need to put our money where our mouth is. Bush declared you are either with us or against us - if you harbor terrorists we're going to take you out. I'm not recommending invading pakistan, but I sure as hell would like to think there was SOMETHING being done to find a way to ferret them out of there.

Bottom line is the administration has blown all credibility on everything. So many trumped-up blatantly-obviously-timed "orange alerts," so many over-hyped arrests of the gang who couldn't shoot straight, that of COURSE people mock them. I doubt, though that many of those who are mocking doubt that the threat is real.

[blondeatlast]

89. "you, you, you" Most DUers refer to each other as "we." Just sayin'... nt

[Flatulo]

97. I'm a pretty individualistic kind of guy. I don't self-identify well

with any particular political demographic.

I'm mostly libertarian, in terms of not invading other countries to steal their stuff, and strong on civil rights for everyone, and also gun rights.

On the other hand, I favor a strong social safety net and a universal health care system. Most libertarians would oppose UHC.

I intend to support Democratic candidates because I believe the Bush Administration and the Republican led congress have made quite a mess of things, and it's time for a correction.

I don't know what that makes me... that's why I don't like labels.

[blondeatlast]

90. YOU folks. nt

[ManWroteTheBible]

123. Everyone's entitled to their opinion...

I respect your position on this. I don't agree with it because it requires me to trust an untrustable administration when it comes to my wellbeing and that of this country. If, as you say, there are so many of these violent jihadists - admittedly a claim I do not dispute - that wish to harm America and Americans, I submit to you 1 question: Why no more attacks on American soil? If you would, please try to follow my logic...

* 9/11/01 transpires - however it was allowed to happen.
* We invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban (a once American-backed entity) and al-qaida as they were in cahoots in the plot to attack America
* We have bin Laden and Co. on the run and cornered in Tora Bora
* We divert the necessary resources to capture or kill him to invade Iraq
* bin Laden goes on to record his "greatest hits" videos as does his lieutenant al-Zwahiri (not sure on spelling)

If there are sleeper cells in this country then why no more attacks? If this is a "war" then there would be attack and counter-attack and it goes back and forth until there is either a truce or a clear victor.
bin Laden is the Bush administration's "boogieman" and the "boogieman" has lots of allies (violent Islamic jihadists). A deal was made, in my opinion. George gave Osama a pass and Osama stood down. Sure that's conspiracy theory - but that doesn't make it untrue.

You say that we can't have it both ways? Neither can you. I agree with you that there are many out there who wish to do us harm, but other than in Iraq, why haven't they? Do the math. What's gonna be more terrorizing to Americans, car bombs in Baghdad or car bombs in Boston? You claim that reports of killing several "# 2's" is progress. Those are meant as you have taken them - "feel-good reports" about the "progress" we're making on the "War on Terror" - you know... "See? We're making great progress." To me, that's pretty naive of you to still buy into, at face value, anything that is disseminated from a media that has acted as a mouthpiece for rather than a watchdog against the Bush Administration.

[Flatulo]

143. I only wished to point out that there is no propaganda value to this

story, and hence it can safely be taken at face value.

[Danger Mouse]

134. Well...

I think that there are dangerous terrorists out there who would love to kill us.
However, I think the far greater threat to our country right now lies smack in the White House.
Iraq is rapidly going down the toilet, and the 'war on terror' has been an exercise in futlity from start to finish. Bush has clearly shown where his priorities lie, and they aren't with going after terrorists.
Vicarious pleasure? I don't mock the troops. I mock Bush. And I receive a great deal of pleasure from doing so.
:D

[Flatulo]

144. I did not claim that anyone was mocking the troops...

This is exactly what I said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1373632&mesg_id=1376869

> I know your mockery is directed at the Administration

I know that no one here mocks the troops.

Sorry if I gave that impression.

[Danger Mouse]

152. What you said...

"Does it really give you vicarious pleasure to mock the efforts of those who are actually fighting this battle?"

Alright, so not mocking them per se, but mocking their efforts.

[IronLionZion]

39. sit down my friend, we don't actually read the articles...we just assume and flame...nt

[ryanus]

51. So how then did the military kill him?

Seems that we have two groups invovled in a play.

[Flatulo]

102. We didn't kill him. Read the article. He never existed.

The military announced that they got duped by a non-entity.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. Duh. The Iraqi military claimed to have killed him in a gunbattle

about 3 months ago.

Everybody is lying to us.

There are three ways to do propaganda. The most effective is to tell the truth, spun in a way that advances your cause. The second way is what most people think of as propaganda, outright lies meant to convince people that black is white - Hitler's "great lie". And the third is to flood the information system with contradictory statements so that nobody can be sure what is truth and what is a lie.

This is a prime example of #3.

[jazzjunkysue]

68. Can I offer my own interpretation?

"The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements."

"The ploy was to invent Bush, a PNAC figure whose very name establishes his GOP pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the United States of America and then arrange for Americans to swear allegiance to him. Dick Cheney, PNAC's deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Bush in his video and Internet statements."

Gee-I wonder where al Qaeda got that idea from?

[Psyop Samurai]

92. By George, I think you've got it !!

:thumbsup:

[jazzjunkysue]

101. They make it too easy. As a teacher of 3rd graders, I can tell you that

they use the same schemes and excuses and cover-ups time after time. You'd think we all would catch on after a while.
:hi:

[AntiFascist]

98. I still think they are working for their Saudi and neocon financiers....

their goal is to stir things up so that we have ongoing war according to the script spelled out in PNAC. The insurgents in Iraq seem to be catching on.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. Yeah. "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" created this phony dude, who never existed.

The real question is, who created "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia", and are you sure THEY really exist?

[creeksneakers2]

126. Yeah. That's probably made up too

We found an abundance of evidence that at least one, and probably far more than one, of the Al Qaeda in Iraq communicating with Osama stories was a complete fabrication. Well, not absolutely. There was a document purchased from well known forgery operation. Bush said the document was captured at an Al Qaeda safe house just after Zarqawi left (in hurry of course).

By now, either there must be a visible trail worn into the countryside by messengers between Al Qaeda leadership and Iraqi insurgents, or else the White House is making this all up. There have been dozens and dozens of captured messengers and captured documents that purportedly support whichever claim Bush is pushing at the moment. Out of all those interceptions, they've never once traced one back to Osama. Odd, isn't it?

Right now, the White House is desperately trying to reintroduce the idea that we are fighting Al Qaeda. Perhaps the White House does have an Iraqi who managed to offer the exact lie debriefers were looking for and win a night off from nude pyramid. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even have that.

[Bjorn Against]

11. Wag the Dog becomes a more relevant film with each passing day.

[pinniped]

15. Add al-Zarqawi, terra-dude extraordinaire to the fictional character list.

This dude had so many brushes with death he could only exist in a comic book.

[Karenina]

28. He was deleted from the script

after 2 ressurections and an amputation only to be immediately replaced by Al-Zawahiri. That didn't last long, names too similar and the Zarqawi stuff got dragged into the mix.

[NJCher]

29. hahahah

I remember him. Somebody claimed they had a spreadsheet to track the number of times he'd been killed.

DU-ers have been onto this scam for a long, long time. Still, it's interesting they've admitted to at least one.



Cher

[ingac70]

81. Don't forget Zarqawi terrorized Iraq hopping on one leg....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704270011


The media likes to forget that part of the US "proof" Iraq was helping terrorists was the "fact" Zarqawi had his leg amputated in a Bahgdad hospital.

Every time they reported "trouble" he caused after that, I had to laugh. I mean, he's suppose to be the one in the video sawing off Nick Berg's head! Great balance, huh? :sarcasm:

[Flatulo]

103. So how many legs does it take to saw off a head? n/t

[ingac70]

109. Did you see the video?

Zarqawi is standing behind Berg, with perfect balance, sawing off his head. Two legs are present, and neither of them looked prosthetic. You think the US ran after a guy for a couple of years with one leg?

[Flatulo]

135. Nah, that was a (poor) attempt at humor. Sorry. n/t

[pinniped]

120. Oh ya, I remember that bit about his leg.

He narrowly escaped the grim reaper by jumping out of a speeding taxi cab while bullets turned it into swiss cheese. He lost his super-valuable notebook puter, but escaped to live another day.

Al-Zarqawi was a one man wrecking crew.

[EVDebs]

16. Pull our troops out of Lower Shitholia NOW. Sen Reid, keep trying ! and thank you for your efforts

[Nikki Stone1]

17. No kidding. I take back my tin foil hat

I believe that most of Osama has been fabricated as well.

:tinfoilhat:

[EVDebs]

74. 9-11 Press For Truth ! The Jersey Girls are right

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8666444901186351024

[PBass]

19. Please, read the article first, then form an opinion.

Not the other way around.

[robinlynne]

20. and the dog wags.

[yurbud]

21. maybe this is the military fucking with Bushies or signaling them that if there's a false flag, they

won't go along with it.

[mogster]

22. The Senior Director and the Iraqi Actor.

Anybody remember the press centre in Doha being designed by Hollywood's set designer, prior to the invasion of Iraq?

BOLDFACE NAMES
By JOYCE WADLER
Boldface Names column; French directors and actors meet members of American press in honor of Rendez-Vous With French Cinema festival; Eric Alterman, Arianna Huffington and others participate in panel discussion on media bias; Hollywood set designer George Allison designs stage for military briefings in Qatar.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/eric_alterman/index.html?query=ALLISON,%20GEORGE&field=per&match=exact

"Former Bush campaign aide Jim Wilkinson, (forever seared into the American psyche as the spokesman for GOP Miami-based protesters clamoring to stop the Florida ballot re-count during the 2000 election) has been hired as Tommy Frank's top spokesperson at the media center, and will be responsible for overseeing 42 military public affairs officers charged with managing hundreds of international correspondents covering the war.

"In other words, the media center that's been built by the military, has been designed, in part, by the Hollywood art director who adds the Orwellian ambiance to George Bush's speeches. And to make matters worse, this entire public affairs operation is headed Jim Wilkinson, one of the thugs who protested the Florida recount.

"Ever the good soldier, (though a civilian, Wilkinson reportedly wears a military desert camouflage uniform to work), Wilkinson is poised to 'manage' journalists working at the center, many of whom are currently enjoying Ritz-Carlton accommodations, open bars and free buffets and belly dancing. 'It's a first-class war,' said Peter Lloyd, correspondent for Australian Broadcasting Corp."

Note: The Hollywood art director is "George Allison, the Hollywood honcho who designed the $200,000 stage, most recently worked on the upcoming Kirk and Michael Douglas film, as well as on George Bush's 'Corporate Responsibility' and other propaganda backdrops."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Wilkinson
----------------------------------------------------------

What kind of movie are we living in? :shrug:
Was it Kevin Bergner or Kevin Costner? My popcorn bag is empty and my ass does feel the need to stand up, so do we HAVE to watch the full credit list at the end, where the fictional al-(fill in proper, spooky name) slowly rolls by?

[Knightly_Knews]

23. The very first time I saw this name...

I knew it was fake.. Al-Baghdadi? It just sounds fake. Actually it sounds just like something * would say.. I actually remember them telling us that Chemical Ali was killed in an attack:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/07/sprj.irq.chemical.ali/
then 4 months later we see him on Trial with Saddam.

Everything they say is a fucking lie. EVERYTHING!

[va4wilderness]

54. Better to get Borat to fill in....

Just look at the people they got to say there were weapons of mass destruction in the lead up to the war, this guy, how many others??? All fake. They are no more credible than Borat and we all got duped.

[MsMagnificent]

24. Manipulative, pathologocical, propagandist liars

...to a man.

And not "mislead" -- tell it like it is: they LIE.

Where did the America, who used to have Honor, Dignity, and Principles, go?

[4dsc]

26. Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional too

just how much propaganda do you believe??

[JTFrog]

27. It does help

to actually read the article. I was all prepared to be up in arms, but this general isn't saying that the U.S. used the actor to make the videos. The theory is that Al Queda used the actor to portray an important leader thereby sending the U.S. on a wild goose chase for years, chasing someone who didn't even exist.

The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. And you believe the general because...?

We created Al Queda and the Taliban, and funded them for years. We've been claiming to have 'gotten' one top AQ leader after another. But we don't know that the fearsome 'Al Bagdhadi' is a fiction?

They lie, then lie about their lies, then lie about lying about their lies. We cannot believe ANYTHING that comes from this administration. So why choose to believe them on this?

So 'Al Bagdhadi' was an actor. I suspect that someone on Al Jazeera recognised him and was about to spill the beans, so we made this pronouncement pre-emptively. "Wow. He really had us fooled! What a surprise!" But we have known for months. Just as it was in AQ's interests to put an Iraqi face on their operations, so it was to OUR interests. Because, after all, if AQ is firmly entrenched in Iraq, then going after Bin Laden would not be effective, and so we have a reason to stay there and fight them 'over there', because if we don't Iraq will turn into an AQ state.

It's all about staying put in Iraq till we get the oil concessions signed over to us. That is the bottom line.

[JTFrog]

47. Did I say I believe the general?

I merely pointed out that he was saying that Al Qaeda used an actor not the U.S., as some were jumping to the opposite conclusion.

Do I believe that the U.S. has as well? Probably yes. But he wasn't outing our side.

I also didn't dispute whether we knew about it or not. In fact the article says they suspected he may not even exist.

[AZCat]

62. We created the Taliban?

That's a new one for me. I've heard the "we created Al Queda" claims before, but do you happen to have any links regarding the Taliban claim?

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Taliban was largely the creation of Pakistani security apparatus,

which we contributed to and certainly did not object to, trying to enforce their idea of security in Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out. Without the CIA funding and Pakinstani Intelligence operatives, the Taliban would not have become preeminent among the Afghani warlords.

At least, that is my understanding.

[Flatulo]

99. Nope, nothing in there about our creating the Taliban.

I looked twice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Huh? Nothing in where? What are you talking about.

And, appropos of absolutely nothing, who is the beautiful girl you have as your avatar?

[MsMagnificent]

88. Baghdad Bergner

May as well appellate him to Baghdadi Bergner -- I wouldn't believe a word he says.

Read Froomkin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[Flatulo]

96. Ah, a reader! Thanks.

[creeksneakers2]

127. The White House has a major initiative under way

to lie and confuse the public into thinking that the enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda. This initiative includes the use of the word Al Qaeda in all their communications. Newspapers have fallen in line and desribe all battles the troops fight as battles with Al Qaeda.

The White House is pushing this fiction despite many intelligence and military reports that found only a tiny fraction of the fighters in Iraq are foreign. I read something like 14,000 insurgents have been captured in Iraq and only 134 of them are foreign and half of those are Saudi.

This latest propaganda piece serves Bush's initiative well if its believed. It proposes that the enemy in Iraq is truly Al Qaeda, and the reason we didn't think that before was they were fooling us.

The Washington Post exposed an entire propaganda department within the Pentagon dedicated to creating tales like this one. I can post a link if you'd like.

[Flatulo]

145. But this isn't a propaganada piece. It is an admission that our

military and intelligence apparatus got fooled. How is that propaganda?

This story is a big nothing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. OTOH, this same administration claims we were surprised by 9/11

when the truth is that they wilfully ignored all evidence of anything that was pending. Then, the day after it happened they miraculously came up with the names of all 19 hijackers.

This administration does not admit mistakes. So when they do seem to be admitting one, it is meant to cover up an even greater offense. We've seen it again and again.

[Flatulo]

156. No miracles involved.

The flight crews of all the planes had given the hijackers' seat numbers to the ground authorities.

You should spend some more time in the Dungeon, where we can give you a proper drubbing on all your false notions about the events of 9/11.

You are absolutely right about the other point. This Administration will NEVER admit any error. Never. It's probably their biggest liability.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. Right. I can just picture it --

"...and we will seat the hijackers in 13b&c, 17a, 21d and 22a."

"The flight crews of all the planes had given the hijackers' seat numbers to the ground authorities."

C'mon. Think about it. How did they know who the hijackers were? Did they go through the passanger manifest and just pick some likely looking names? Or did the authorities show up with a list of names and ask the 'flight crews' (who would that be, by the way? None of the flight attendants survived.) about the names on the list - but, if they were on the list as suspected terrorists, how did they get on the planes? As I remember it took weeks to get confirmation of the passangers' names - yet we knew the hijackers within the first 36 hours.

It defies logic.

The fact of the matter is, we don't know who hijacked those planes. Half the names we were given belonged to people who turned up in subsequent months, living in their home countries - their identities had been stolen and used by the hijackers -- which means, obviously, that we don't know who the hijackers were. And knowing we don't know, we know that the government lied to us about them.

Which brings me back in full circle - they lie about everything.

[Flatulo]

159. Let's not go too far off-thread here... let's take this to the Dungeon.

Muwahahahahah

[Vinca]

31. No wonder we catch #2 over and over again. nt

[kpete]

32. LAT's version

They also had few details about the actor they said portrays Baghdadi in videos, saying only that he is an elderly Iraqi man whose name is Abu Abdullah Naima.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq19jul19,0,886772.story?coll=la-home-center

[sellitman]

34. You have been Psy-opted

If you had the need for real news you would of received it. Please continue buying plastic sheeting and duct tape and wave that flag often!

[LeftHander]

35. What else is fiction too...? nt

[AngryAmish]

37. They are all robots

[havocmom]

40. .

[Enrique]

41. it worked, people reading this thread think the U.S. military did this

the question is, why?

[KC for Obama]

50. Not US military, this time

I don't believe the US military was behind this at all.

But, I do have an increasingly disdain for President Bush's "military and intelligence briefings" because how can we even know if they are credible and factual?

If we're chasing down al-Qaeda leaders that are fictional, and we don't even know that, what does this say about anybody else we're "hunting down and smokin' out of their holes?"

Granted, nothing can take away from the fact that road-side bombs litter the streets more than hookers in NY's 'ol red light district...but that doesn't mean its al-Qaeda fighting the US military. It's pissed of Iraquis that find the US military in the middle of their civil war bullshit.

Americans sent a definite message to Congress to get out of Iraq. Congress has its hands tied because President Bush will veto anything/everything that suggests how to operate/run the war. President Bush cites military and intelligence briefings, which may/may not even be credible. American military is assigned to serve in this area hunting down a fictional character(s).

Is Osama even real? Is the al-Qaeda surge real?

Either way, the fact that I, a college-educated young man, even has to ask these questions is a real shame.

[RaleighNCDUer]

130. Damn right, it's a shame.

And welcome to DU.

[Flatulo]

100. Because they didn't read the article.

People saw 'al Qaeda' and assumed the Administration was making stuff up again.

For the record, this Administration makes up stuff all the time.

However, one usuallymakes up stuff to bolter one's position, not make oneself look foolish, as this post clearly claims.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. Why? Because of the inaccurate 'admits' in the thread title

That goes into people's heads with them hardly realising it - and affects their interpretation of the rest of it. Although the rest of what was quoted came from the article, that 'admits' came from kpete, with no basis in the article at all. But that's enough to get a lot of us thinking the US government has had to own up to something.

A good lesson in propaganda, overall.

[Flatulo]

147. Thanks, that was my point. This was not a propaganda piece. nt

[bigtree]

42. This is an attempt by the military to pretend that the insurgency is foreign-led

. . . inspired by al-Qaeda and not by the predictable Iraqi resistance we all know is occurring.

I don't trust this report AT ALL.

[Enrique]

49. I don't either

the NYT story does a pretty good job of pointing out the many questions about this story.

Now, if only people would actually read the story. :-(

[ceile]

64. Agreed. n/t

[Flatulo]

149. Did you read the ... never mind, I give up...

[onenote]

160. I don't blame you for giving up

And the answer is no, they probably didn't read the story. They just assumed that it supported their preconceived notions. Its a not uncommon occurrence here at DU these days, sadly.

[spanone]

43. And we think we live in a democracy. What fools we are. A nation run by CRIMINALS.

WAR FOR PROFIT.

WAR FOR OIL.

[dkofos]

44. The idiots in charge of this occupation don't have a clue.

[kpete]

45. interesting take:

I think there's more here than we've been told. Certainly more than one side can play this "fake tape" game? Would not an Iraqi and an Egyptian have distinguishable accents? Why did the Iraqis claim to have killed him? (Al Qaeda leaders tend to die several times.) Wasn't the sudden appearance of an Al Qaeda leader in Iraq awfully conveeeeeenient?

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/leader-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq-is-fictional.html

[wiggs]

46. Fake Turkey. Fake Ranch. nt

[peacetalksforall]

59. Novels, screenplays, short stoires, pulp fiction, science fiction,

games. Put them all together and you have MILFiction. All those guys sitting around a table in the Pentagon dreaming this up. It's obvious that they didn't call in Hollywood to dream it up - or maybe they called in Dennis Miller. This had the footprint of Douglas Feith and his friends, plus the blessing of Rumsfeld - the guy who didn't want to fight in Afghanistan, because we didn't have war toys appropriate to the terrain and who would have pocketed a few from the oil of Iraq.

So how much respect are we going to be left with for our military heads?

[lyonn]

113. You forgot one Rummy comment, tho it didn't get lots of press

"There are No Good Targets in Afghanistan, we need to attack Iraq". Rough version of Rummy's words.

[jazzjunkysue]

61. IT WAS BAGHDAD BOB!!!

:rofl:

[go west young man]

63. I know the article states "Al Qaeda" made him up.

But after Cheney himself has said that the administration will shape reality to suit their needs I am doubtful of most things they say. Psy Ops involve confusing all issues on all sides. The American people no longer know what or who to trust. Granted the Afghan war may seem legit for those who want to go after "Al Qaeda" should they actually exist. But the Iraq war and the overall "wa on terra" is a ruse for oil and the PNAC/AEI agenda which states they want to control the Middle East thereby controlling Russia, China and others through imperialistic means. Anyone reading this article or others in regards to what the U.S. military is up to should, hopefully, be fully up on the PNAC/AEI agenda. Strange as it may sound the movie "V For Vendetta" comes to mind when reading this stuff. It's surreal.

[bluedog]

66. they admit he was Fake.so will they

admit the Bin Laden tapes are also Fake?

[Az_lefty]

67. Baghdadi = Bag-Daddy...They even made it into a joke...

and these people expect to take seriously when they ask for more troops, etc.

[valerief]

71. As fake as the official explanation for 9-11. nt

[poverlay]

146. True dat. Someday, I hope to know the whole truth. nt

[kenny blankenship]

78. So will Wolf Blitzer or any other MSM member with their own show give an hour to this story?

Seems like a timely opportunity to revisit the giant raft of lies that got us into the whole Rape of Iraq quagmire.

Maybe they'd prefer that the Senate debate on withdrawal happen in a vacuum of historical context?

[lyonn]

112. This guy "baghdadi" (sp?) has been a fictional character

whose name has been bantered about for at least a year and then, on the 4th of July, 2007, a "high profile" terrorist is captured and he spills his guts and explains who Baghdadi is. Wow, good story, how did we miss it on the 4th?

Gotta leave this post and find out more about "dog fights" and then on to what Elizabeth said to Hillary,....

[libodem]

79. This is so stupid and convoluted.

This is my spin. The US Army really, really, really, wants us to believe that Iraq is full of foreign fighters. So the story is saying that the Insurgents, in order to fool the US, made up a Native National, to disguise the big ol' pile of foreigners coming in country to fight. Psych OPs wants Americans to believe that, Iraq, is chock full of, Afghans fresh from Osama training camps, Iranians, fresh from, hummm?, Islamofacist training camp, and who ever else the can make up, some Haamas, Palestinians, Mexicans, Egyptians and Libyans. Cheney and Bush are still trying to justify this war. This war is killing all the Iraq men. If they are a man they are a terrorist, over there. The sick thing is once you take the 'man' out of a Muslim household to women and children are left afloat, to fend for themselves. What an incredible hardship. If those same women and children run to Syria, the woman can not work, legally. They find employment, in secret, as prostitutes. So our basic plan for rebuilding Iraq into a Democracy, is to kill the husband and father, and make the mother and children into sex slaves. Such liberation. No wonder these Muslims find our freedom distasteful. You know they can barely find any foreigners, except for Saudi Arabians. Go figure.

[go west young man]

82. Well put.

[AntiFascist]

106. At least all the oil contractors will be free, if they survive n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

80. Fabricating them over there, so we don't have to make stuff up over here

You mean 600,000+ people have died because of the tooth fairy? Say it ain't so.

[Gman]

83. Kinda like an Al-Queda Tuttle

[DianaForRussFeingold]

87. I can imagine that name 'Al-Baghdadi' gave quite a thrill at the White House

Heck of a Job, Maliki! :spank:

[eppur_se_muova]

93. Remember the 'composite guerilla' created by State Dept (IIRC) during the Reagan regime?

I can't remember enough specifics to do a good Google search. Does anyone remember the report I'm referring to? I was thinking this was a report on the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, but it might have been El Salvador.

[Strawman]

94. It's kinda like that episode of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"

[gentlegiant]

108. Actually, Al Baghdadi would be

a legitimate name in Arabic. Lots of names are place-derivitive. Names that have "Min-Al" in them mean "from ___". Names that have "B'__ or B'al" are "of___". Other Arabic names are derived from family or even nature. There are names of animals commonly used as surnames. The meanings of some words are skewed in our translation. Kareem Abdul Jabar translates very roughly to "the generous son of the bridge". Kareem means large or generous, large of spirit or what we call "heart". Abd' means "son of". "Al" is "the" and "Jabbar" means bridge, but it also means a person who acts as a bridge as in a negotiator or peacemaker. So Kareem Abdul Jabbar means a spiritually generous son of a peace maker.
I had a teacher whose name translated as "Majestic Bird".

Anyway, Al Baghdadi may appear obviously fake to an American. Our names have lost their translations over the years except those that deal with trades like Cooper, or Smith. But to an Iraqi, it would be perfectly acceptable as the name of someone whose ancestry is in Baghdad.

Al Salaam ala kum.
GG

[RaleighNCDUer]

132. Except, wouldn't the 'Al Baghdadi' be a descriptive, not a surname?

Saddam Hussein was Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti - Saddam Hussein from Tikrit.

This would be like calling someone Joe from Seattle. From Seattle is not his surname, it is a descriptive. So calling him Al Baghdadi is just an admission that they don't really know who they are talking about, because they don't know his true surname.

Or they're just making shit up.

[lyonn]

110. So, they are going to follow us home as bush has grimly told us

many times, only they are planning their own route, not following. They, AQ, terrorist, evil ones, etc., are getting excellent training in Iraq. If we would get out the Iraqis might run the interlopers out on their own. Bet they are sick of other people running their country and trying to steal their oil.

[Quantess]

111. weird.

Kicking.

[Supersedeas]

115. Fromkin has some interesting info the Psyops Bergner

[Rosa Luxemburg]

116. Oh dear the propaganda unit made a mistake oops! DId they hang the real Saddam?

it's all fake

[KAT119]

117. Osama Bin Laden reported dead-false audio tapes of him by CIA!!

1 false video. Richard Perle OSP architect of Iraq War said Osama dead.

[nam78_two]

119. K&R-WTF indeed

:wtf:

[Redstone]

122. Thats so bizarre that I'd dismiss it out of hand, except that the IHT is a

credible source.

I'm generally suspicious about "news" like this, but I believe this time it's going to turn out to be true.

We really HAVE fallen down the rabbit hole.

Redstone

[reprehensor]

138. BTW, kpete...

"Al Masri is simply a common codename used by many Al Qaeda operatives..." - John Newman, in testimony at Cynthia McKinney's Congressional Hearing on 9/11, 2005. D/L transcript here.


Sounds like a fake making a fake.

[reprehensor]

140. Video D/L here.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6800