Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

[banyon]

Well, this'll separate the hawks and doves :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives

Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
2 minutes ago

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed. The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.
Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said. Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint. Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband." He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation." The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband." The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."

[Lurch]

Eh, ambiguous arrest and detention for interrogation has a storied past. It is considered a negotiating tactic to patriots and seizure to apologists for terrorists. The view depends on where you sit.

[CRONUS]

My first thought is "Did the women do anything they could be held for legitimately". If not this certainly seems unjustifiable.

[banyon]

Eh, ambiguous arrest and detention for interrogation has a storied past. It is considered a negotiating tactic to patriots and seizure to apologists for terrorists. The view depends on where you sit.

Is there any action we could commit in Iraq that "patriots" would disapprove of, and not just us "apologists for terrorists?" :hmmm:

[Nightwish]

It is considered a negotiating tactic to patriots and seizure to apologists for terrorists.
Now there's a loaded statement if ever I saw one! Are you of the mind that in order to be patriotic, one must not call into question morally ambiguous tactics when they are employed by our troops? What would you say if American troops started using chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians, or started strapping on bombs and walking into crowded areas? How would a patriot describe such things, and how would an apologist for the terrorists describe them? Yes, I know that's an extreme jump, but if you're willing to use such loaded rhetoric, then surely you must have an answer.

[Chiefs Express]

I read the document that was shown to be sanitized. There are some inconsistancies with protocol that I saw in the document.

There is a reference to MG [blanked out] having a letter of reprimand placed in his record until he is removed from the AOR. The letter was signed by a BG. Last time I checked a MG outranked a BG by at lease one star. A BG would not have any such authority to place a letter like that in a superior's service record. It also mentions the name of the individual which seems to be the one they are indicating should have the letter put in his OSR. [Olson]

Other things about the document in question bother me. The memorandum format has not been used for some time. The classification notation is not one that has been typically used. Classification is normally stamped onto a document after it is written and is typically red in color. The classification on this document was typed on (computer generated most likely), but in the case of it already being typed on there is still a requirement for that document to have the stamp superimposed over the typed classification.
I'm not saying this is not a legitimate document but there are too many things that do not jive with the SOP for classified information. Before I tied my wagon to that horse I'd have to see something that may not have been generated by a news agency.

[Chief Henry]

Is there any action we could commit in Iraq that "patriots" would disapprove of, and not just us "apologists for terrorists?" :hmmm:


Cutting off fingers, heads or hands would be a start.
I don't think pushing men or women off the roofs of buildings would be a good thing.

I don't think digging mass graves and standing people on the sides of these mass graves and then shooting them would be a good thing.

Lets, see. I don't think raping mens wifes or daughters would be a good thing.

I 'd say their is a alot of things that would not meet with approval by the americans.

[banyon]

I read the document that was shown to be sanitized. There are some inconsistancies with protocol that I saw in the document.

There is a reference to MG [blanked out] having a letter of reprimand placed in his record...


ok? how about a link?

[WoodDraw]

So what is the difference between this and kidnapping?

[Nightwish]

Cutting off fingers, heads or hands would be a start.
I don't think pushing men or women off the roofs of buildings would be a good thing.

I don't think digging mass graves and standing people on the sides of these mass graves and then shooting them would be a good thing.

Lets, see. I don't think raping mens wifes or daughters would be a good thing.

I 'd say their is a alot of things that would not meet with approval by the americans.
So where does the line actually occur for less-than-honorable tactics for "patriots" to not approve of them?

In my opinion, a patriot is someone who loves his country and what it is meant to stand for, and is willing not only to fight to protect his country, but also to call into question those actions which appear to undermine the image, sanctity and integrity of his country. Someone who tacitly approves the use of dishonorable methods, for no better reason than that it is his countrymen who are using them, may not be an apologist for terrorists, but he sure as hell isn't a patriot!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So where does the line actually occur for less-than-honorable tactics for "patriots" to not approve of them?

In my opinion, a patriot is someone who loves his country and what it is meant to stand for, and is willing not only to fight to protect his country, but also to call into question those actions which appear to undermine the image, sanctity and integrity of his country. Someone who tacitly approves the use of dishonorable methods, for no better reason than that it is his countrymen who are using them, may not be an apologist for terrorists, but he sure as hell isn't a patriot!

Exactly right. That person is not a patriot, they are a terrorist.The person who sees this (if true) as completely dishonorable to the ideals of the United States is much more patriotic than any chickenhawk blustering away in the American Spectator. So perhaps Lurch WAS in fact, right.

[Taco John]

Eh, ambiguous arrest and detention for interrogation has a storied past. It is considered a negotiating tactic to patriots and seizure to apologists for terrorists. The view depends on where you sit.


That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the planet, ever. And I'm not talking Chiefsplanet... I'm talking the planet.

[patteeu]

So where does the line actually occur for less-than-honorable tactics for "patriots" to not approve of them?

In my opinion, a patriot is someone who loves his country and what it is meant to stand for, and is willing not only to fight to protect his country, but also to call into question those actions which appear to undermine the image, sanctity and integrity of his country. Someone who tacitly approves the use of dishonorable methods, for no better reason than that it is his countrymen who are using them, may not be an apologist for terrorists, but he sure as hell isn't a patriot!

It's fine to say that a person can be a patriot while opposing her own country's actions, but at some point, that person crosses a line and ceases to be a patriot and becomes an apologist (or even a traitor). Good intentions and an idealistic pursuit of perfection are not enough to keep a person in good standing as a patriot, IMO. The aid and comfort a protestor gives to his country's adversaries has to be weighed against the flaws in his country's current policy. It's impossible to objectively define where the line should be drawn.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The aid and comfort a protestor gives to his country's adversaries has to be weighed against the flaws in his country's current policy.

The first part of your statement is loaded down with lead. Do you really think that protestors are giving 'aid and comfort' to the adversaries of our country? That sounds like 'you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists' to me. Do you think that the Viet Cong were comforted by protests of the Vietnam War? That's an incredibly ethnocentric view. Our adversaries don't care about the feelings of our populace, they care about killing our troops and removing them from their country, by any means necessary. If citizens don't agree with a country's policy, they have the right and the obligation to protest against it. If not, there is no reason trying to spread democracy, because it is dead in the country trying to spread it.

[Chiefs Express]

ok? how about a link?

You are joking, right?

Don't be a dumb ass, the protocol was wrong from what I've seen. There is something that is not right about the documents.

[Adept Havelock]

Do you think that the Viet Cong were comforted by protests of the Vietnam War?


Hamas, I believe strongly in the right to dissent. I will never agree that speaking against and working within the system to change a policy one disagrees with is the same as treason or giving aid and comfort to an enemy. That said, Patteeu does have a point, which you are (purposefully?) avoiding. There have been incidents throughout history of "protestors" of policy taking that next step and working to actively undermine their own nation. It is indeed a difficult line to define, and to pretend otherwise is naive at best.

For one example, look at Ancient Rome. In 410 AD, Rome was under siege by Alaric and the Goths. The city was in a very bad way. Some Roman more concerned with the suffering of the people (who were indeed in the grip of both disease and starvation) than the presence of the Goths took his protests too far, and on the night of August 24th, opened the gates of the city. This led to the sack of Rome, which shook the already weak foundations of the empire. Indeed, many argue it sounded the death-knell of Empire that took another half century to fully play out.

The preceding example is just my verbose way of saying that good intentions can have horrible results.

As for your quote, consider this one:

For every ten of us you kill, we will kill one of you. In the end, you will tire.

[banyon]

You are joking, right?

Don't be a dumb ass, the protocol was wrong from what I've seen. There is something that is not right about the documents.

What? Ok I guess I'll just take your word for it. Let's see Chiefs Express or the Associated Press? :hmmm: Oh, you're right. I don't need a link to see WTF you are talking about. :rolleyes:

[unlurking]

Hamas, I believe strongly in the right to dissent. I will never agree that speaking against and working within the system to change a policy one disagrees with is the same as treason or giving aid and comfort to an enemy. That said, Patteeu does have a point, which you are (purposefully?) avoiding. There have been incidents throughout history of "protestors" of policy taking that next step and working to actively undermine their own nation. It is indeed a difficult line to define, and to pretend otherwise is naive at best.

For one example, look at Ancient Rome. In 410 AD, Rome was under siege by Alaric and the Goths. The city was in a very bad way. Some Roman more concerned with the suffering of the people (who were indeed in the grip of both disease and starvation) than the presence of the Goths took his protests too far, and on the night of August 24th, opened the gates of the city. This led to the sack of Rome, which shook the already weak foundations of the empire. Indeed, many argue it sounded the death-knell of Empire that took another half century to fully play out.

The preceding example is just my verbose way of saying that good intentions can have horrible results.

As for your quote, consider this one:
I think many of you are missing the point of the original post. The tone set by Lurch definitely lends toward anyone disagreeing with the "kidnapping" (call it whatever you like) of terrorist families as being a terrorist apologist, and not a patriot. Never does the intent of aiding the terrorists come into play.

There is no discussion about protest, only another attempt an idiot (don't care about the political persuasion) to attempt to bully and control the free thought and beliefs of others. This is something I believe the current administration has been supporting towards the goal of a nationalistic ideal.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I think many of you are missing the point of the original post. The tone set by Lurch definitely lends toward anyone disagreeing with the "kidnapping" (call it whatever you like) of terrorist families as being a terrorist apologist, and not a patriot. Never does the intent of aiding the terrorists come into play.

There is no discussion about protest, only another attempt an idiot (don't care about the political persuasion) to attempt to bully and control the free thought and beliefs of others. This is something I believe the current administration has been supporting towards the goal of a nationalistic ideal.

Agreed.

[Chiefs Express]

What? Ok I guess I'll just take your word for it. Let's see Chiefs Express or the Associated Press? :hmmm: Oh, you're right. I don't need a link to see WTF you are talking about. :rolleyes:

I figured that you were just an asshole, but you are much worse. You are leaning on the liberal side fo the situation and have no clue as to whether the documents are actual or forgeries. I have been involved with handling classified information as late as 2002, the format that is shown on the documents do not match what I've seen with the current instructions regarding the information.

I did not say that they were fake, I said that there were inconsistancies with the documents based on my experience. If you would like to compare backgrounds I think I can prove that my experience might be a little more legitimate than you might want to think.

I have a reputation of being an ass, but you are showing your ass, not because I might have a point, but because you have judged me by others and the past posts. Believe what you will, believe what you must but know one thing, all the information you think is fact is not always what it seems.

Now, return to your rants and taking pot shots at what I've said. It does nothing to prove your point and nothing to disprove what I've said.

4321

[banyon]

I figured that you were just an asshole...


I have been involved with handling classified information as late as 2002
Now, return to your rants and taking pot shots at what I've said. It does nothing to prove your point and nothing to disprove what I've said.

4321

Tom?

[Chiefs Express]

Tom?

Pay attention and you won't be needing a map.

[Nightwish]

You are joking, right?

Don't be a dumb ass, the protocol was wrong from what I've seen. There is something that is not right about the documents.
What protocol are you talking about? The article mentions one memo, but said most of the documents in question were emails. What exactly is the email protocol in today's military?

[banyon]

I figured that you were just an asshole, but you are much worse. You are leaning on the liberal side fo the situation and have no clue as to whether the documents are actual or forgeries. I have been involved with handling classified information as late as 2002, the format that is shown on the documents do not match what I've seen with the current instructions regarding the information.

What's so bad about that? You don't know whether or not they are forgeries either, you haven't seen them.



Now, return to your rants and taking pot shots at what I've said. It does nothing to prove your point and nothing to disprove what I've said.

Really. I didn't take a pot shot at your info. I asked for some kind of proof. You obviously wouldn't just take my word for it if I had started this thread with just a general observation about how Iraqi wives are being kidnapped instead of the source I found it from. Why should your post be different?

[Chiefs Express]

What's so bad about that? You don't know whether or not they are forgeries either, you haven't seen them.

You need to look at the documents that were provided in the link. There are three pages there and they are all three mismarked with the classification.

I'm not saying they are forgeries, I'm saying that they are inconsistant with instructions for classifying documents. That one fact leads one to suspect their authenticity.

[Chiefs Express]

What protocol are you talking about? The article mentions one memo, but said most of the documents in question were emails. What exactly is the email protocol in today's military?

At the bottom of the article there is a link to the documents. Look at them, they are in a format that would not be consistant with an email. They are also not consistant with procedures for classifying documents. Protocol might have been the wrong word to use, but the declassification method was not per instructions. MG Olsen should have been blacked out like the other names in the document if it were authentic.

[banyon]

Hey, Chiefs Express is Tom Cash's new Alias!!!

It's all there:

1) about the right amount of posts (103) since he was banned as "Matt Helm" Check.

2) claims access to classified info when he cannot back up arguments.Check.

3) multiple spelling/grammar errorsCheck.

4)A lot of negative rep.Check.

5)Just sent me a dumbass private message.Check.

________________________________
It doesn't bother me that you don't believe me, but at least respond as an adult.

Chiefs Express
2nd star on the left
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun I had over 28 years working with classified information in the Navy, the last 6 years with a TS/SCI. There are inconsistancies with the documents and appearances as I saw them (not these specific documents).

You keep asking for a link, I cannot give you one. Besides if I gave you one and you tried to access it there would be more problems that either of us would want to face.

The instructions for handling classified material is very exact and followed to a "T" each and every time a document is classified.
________________________________

How long until the next ban?
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-lmfao.gif ROFL http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-lmfao.gif ROFL http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-lmfao.gif ROFL

[Chiefs Express]

Hey, Chiefs Express is Tom Cash's new Alias!!!



You are dumber than I thought! Get a program and try to figure out what is going on. This is very old news.

Now respond to the reply to your assinine comment.

[banyon]

At the bottom of the article there is a link to the documents. Look at them, they are in a format that would not be consistant with an email. They are also not consistant with procedures for classifying documents. Protocol might have been the wrong word to use, but the declassification method was not per instructions. MG Olsen should have been blacked out like the other names in the document if it were authentic.



1) the second link documents DO look like e-mails.
2) Can't declassifying bureaucrats make a mistake?

[Chiefs Express]

1) the second link documents DO look like e-mails.
2) Can't declassifying bureaucrats make a mistake?

1. I will review them again.

2. Yes, but there are far too many checks and balances in the system to let a name get through.

[Chiefs Express]

1. I will review them again.

2. Yes, but there are far too many checks and balances in the system to let a name get through.

I checked the email documents you refer to. There is a sequence number on them but no classification on them. What I see there is a breach of security. It looks as if someone emailed what should have been classified material over a regular internet mail account. It could have been sent from an ####@army.mil account but it was not sent across the SIPR or NIPR nets. Any document printed from the closed loop for classified information would have a classification stamped on it, just like normal classified information. Check back in the archives of declassified documents, the stamps are still in use.

[CRONUS]

...
________________________________

How long until the next ban?
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-lmfao.gif ROFL http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-lmfao.gif ROFL http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-lmfao.gif ROFL

Don't know and will not know he is on my iggy list. I sort of hope the dumbass does not get banned so I don't keep having to added him over and over again.

[JBucc]

I guess instead of prisoner exchange they'd have a Wife-swap. Heh. I'm proud of that one.

[banyon]

Don't know and will not know he is on my iggy list. I sort of hope the dumbass does not get banned so I don't keep having to added him over and over again.

Mine too, now. ROFL

[Chiefs Express]

Mine too, now. ROFL

No balls to answer the questions posted? You and Vald are the biggest type of hypocrits!

You may call me names and consider my opinon not worthy of your response, but I have now proven that you are the ones with the problems and that you fail to carry on a debate..

[Nightwish]

No balls to answer the questions posted? You and Vald are the biggest type of hypocrits!

You may call me names and consider my opinon not worthy of your response, but I have now proven that you are the ones with the problems and that you fail to carry on a debate..
Declaring victory after someone has put you on ignore is a common save face tactic.

[Chiefs Express]

Declaring victory after someone has put you on ignore is a common save face tactic.

I want a response. They were willing to discuss the failings until they didn't have an answer then went into hiding.

I may not always be right, but I'm not always wrong either.

In this case I feel they have jumped the gun, at least in banyon's case. Vlad is just being a coward that will not try to discuss the situation.

If you want to take up their cause, by all means do so, but in doing so for get the reputation and concentrate on the issues at hand.

[Amnorix]

You are dumber than I thought! Get a program and try to figure out what is going on. This is very old news.



Don't be offended, Banyon -- this is nearly identical to what he said to me when I discovered he was back in his most recent (prior to this one) incarnation.

What is equally old news, CE, is that you are "obnixious and disliked" to borrow a phrase from 1776, and the question is why do you persist in forcing your presence on those who have quite actively and nearly unanimously announced that it is completely unwanted.

No doubt, you have no satisfactory answer, and as this is a public message board we'll all simply wait until your inevitable (re)banning.

[Baby Lee]

What is equally old news, CE, is that you are "obnixious and disliked" to borrow a phrase from 1776,
That old-timey English is so fascinating. ;)

[patteeu]

I think many of you are missing the point of the original post. The tone set by Lurch definitely lends toward anyone disagreeing with the "kidnapping" (call it whatever you like) of terrorist families as being a terrorist apologist, and not a patriot. Never does the intent of aiding the terrorists come into play.

There is no discussion about protest, only another attempt an idiot (don't care about the political persuasion) to attempt to bully and control the free thought and beliefs of others. This is something I believe the current administration has been supporting towards the goal of a nationalistic ideal.

You don't have to have ill intentions for your actions to amount to aid and comfort for the enemy. I don't really think that applies to anyone in this thread, but some in this thread seem to think that any amount of protest or criticism should be considered acceptable. I don't share that view. What about going to speak in front of the new Hamas parliment in the palestinian territories in order to protest America's unjust ME policy over the past 60 years, and our support of the nation of Israel? Would that be patriotic just because the person might sincerely believe that America would be better off if we withdrew support for Israel and started supporting Hamas? What if a similar person spoke at an Iraqi rally on behalf of Saddam Hussein as US troops were advancing on Bagdhad? At some point, protest crosses the line and the protester can no longer be considered a patriot.

[Lurch]

For the under-educated:

Insurgents engaged in violence and illegal acts to undermine the existing government, and those engaged in conspiracy to commit such acts, are by definition terrorists, not patriots. Governments have a right to deal with both insurgents and terrorists harshly. If you are an insurgent, you have three choices: work within the system, not get caught in illegal acts, or leave. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about. It's pretty simple really.

[Chiefs Express]

Don't be offended, Banyon -- this is nearly identical to what he said to me when I discovered he was back in his most recent (prior to this one) incarnation.

What is equally old news, CE, is that you are "obnixious and disliked" to borrow a phrase from 1776, and the question is why do you persist in forcing your presence on those who have quite actively and nearly unanimously announced that it is completely unwanted.

No doubt, you have no satisfactory answer, and as this is a public message board we'll all simply wait until your inevitable (re)banning.

I would guess that your liberal stance will cause you to believe that anything published against the administration is fact. That is a shame.

As for the past, you need to attempt to read content before you determine that what was said is of no value. Your experience in life is different from mine.

If you would like to persist in attacking only because of who I am and not what is said it shows that your opinion is biased beyond your limit of understanding.

I doubt that I will be banned, you may, however, take the cowards way out and continue being your own version of obnoxious.

Read what was written and find your flaws and explain your stance or just shut the f*** up.

[Nightwish]

For the under-educated:

Insurgents engaged in violence and illegal acts to undermine the existing government, and those engaged in conspiracy to commit such acts, are by definition terrorists, not patriots. Governments have a right to deal with both insurgents and terrorists harshly. If you are an insurgent, you have three choices: work within the system, not get caught in illegal acts, or leave. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about. It's pretty simple really.
No, it's not that simple. We're not talking about terrorists or insurgents. We're talking about family members of suspected terrorists or insurgents. Not "known," but "suspected."

And for the under-educated (like Lurch), an apologist for terrorists is someone whose arguments are consistently coordinated to justify or defend the actions of terrorists, not someone who is critical of less-than-honorable tactics of his own government.

[Chiefs Express]

Don't be offended, Banyon -- this is nearly identical to what he said to me when I discovered he was back in his most recent (prior to this one) incarnation.

What is equally old news, CE, is that you are "obnixious and disliked" to borrow a phrase from 1776, and the question is why do you persist in forcing your presence on those who have quite actively and nearly unanimously announced that it is completely unwanted.

No doubt, you have no satisfactory answer, and as this is a public message board we'll all simply wait until your inevitable (re)banning.

Banyon, do not take the response from Amoronix to heart. His stupidity is only surpassed by his arrogance. He lost the ability to be open minded some time ago. I just ask that you read what I said and respond to it's content and not as a personal attack just because of my past.

[Boyceofsummer]

Al Qaeda No.2 to Bush: You're defeated and lying
New Al-Zawahiri tape airs on Al-Jazeera

Monday, January 30, 2006; Posted: 2:44 p.m. EST (19:44 GMT)


Ayman Al-Zawahiri appears in a video for the first time since one aired January 6.

(CNN) -- An Arabic-language satellite TV network broadcast a videotape Monday of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the first glimpse of Osama bin Laden's top aide since a missile strike attempted to kill him more than two weeks ago in Pakistan.

Al-Zawahiri refers to the January 13 strike in the video, aired by Al-Jazeera. He speaks of the Pakistani village of Damadola and the 18 people who were killed in the attack.

"Their claim was to target this poor man and four of my brothers. The whole world discovered the lies as the Americans fight Islam and the Muslims," says al-Zawahiri, who is dressed in white in the video.

He adds, "I will meet my death when God wishes."

Al-Zawahiri directs a message to President Bush.

"My first message is to the butcher of Washington, Bush: You are not just defeated and lying about it, but you are, with God's help, a loser. You are bad luck to your people. You brought them disasters and catastrophes, and you will bring them even more disasters."

Al-Zawahiri also taunts the U.S. president, saying, "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses enjoying their care with God's blessings and sharing with them their holy war against you until we defeat you, God willing."

CNN has not confirmed when the video was made. It comes 11 days after an audiotape surfaced from bin Laden. In that tape, bin Laden offered the United States a truce and said it is "only a matter of time" before America is attacked again.

CIA officials who analyzed the recording said they believe the voice on the audiotape is that of bin Laden.

In the video that aired Monday, Al-Zawahiri refers to the al Qaeda leader's offer.

"The lion of Islam, Sheik Osama bin Laden, offered you a decent exit from your dilemma, but your leaders, who are keen to accumulate wealth, insist on throwing you in battles and killing your souls in Iraq and Afghanistan and, God willing, on your own land," he says.

Al-Zawahiri also says, "To the American mother I say, if the defense ministry called you to tell you your son is coming back home in a coffin, remember Bush."

He adds, "To the British wife I say, if you got a call telling you your husband is coming back home with his body charred, remember [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair."

Bin Laden's top deputy hadn't been seen since a video aired by Al-Jazeera on January 6.

On January 20, al-Zawahiri recited poetry to jihadists on a 17-minute audiotape that appeared on the Internet.

The Egyptian exile has been indicted for his alleged role in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

[mlyonsd]

Al-Zawahiri also taunts the U.S. president, saying, "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses enjoying their care with God's blessings and sharing with them their holy war against you until we defeat you, God willing."


ROFL I hope it's a big cave. He better not forget his Marx brothers nose and eye glasses when he's out shopping at the market.

[Chiefs Express]

Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

Yep, women are always used as Pawns. Here we have:
jaz
banyon
amoronix
taco jane
cochise