Zawahiri pledges his allegiance to Mullah Omar
posted at 12:00 am on February 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The new tape is out and the Jawas have Laura Mansfield’s translation. CNN’s playing up this passage, but I don’t think it’s that significant:
The Muslims espoused allegiance to the Ottoman state, which was Turkish, and before that, they espoused allegiance to Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, who was Kurdish, and before him, Nur ad-Din bin Zanki, who was Turkish. And the Muslims in the Maghreb espoused allegiance to Yusuf ibn Tashfin, who was a Berber.
And we - by the grace of Allah and His guidance - have pledged allegiance to the Commander of the Believers, Mulla Muhammad Umar, who is an Afghan.
That’s why I ask my Muslim brothers in general and the callers and Mujahideen and their media organizations in particular to highlight the concept of Islamic brotherhood and disown all partisanship, loyalties and animosities based on nationalism, and I ask them not to allow the wrongdoing of a faction or entity motivate them to speak evil of that party’s entire people or race.
Has the crown passed from Osama to Omar? Well, here’s what Z said on December 20 for comparison:
[Y]ou know that your Mujahid brothers, especially in Qaida al-Jihad, are – by the grace of Allah – the farthest people from ethnic fanaticism. They have pledged allegiance to the Commander of the Believers, Mulla Muhammad Umar, as their commander, and he isn’t an Arab.
In the course of the same message, he referred to “our commander, Shaykh Usama bin Ladin (may Allah preserve him).” Where Omar and Osama rank vis-a-vis each other in the jihadi chain of command is anyone’s guess; the point is, Zawahiri’s obviously comfortable with concurrent allegiances.
A subsidiary question presents itself: has he referred to Osama in any messages after December 20? As it turns out, no. Here are Mansfield’s translations of the December 29th Eid message and the January 3rd message on monotheism (scroll down to the disembodied head screenshot). There are no references to him in either, nor are there any in the new message. I’m not prepared to sift through all the transcripts going back to 2001 to find out how long he’s gone without mentioning Osama, but if anyone wants to take a crack and report back, I’m all ears.
Anyway. I’m sure the Shiites in Iraq who’ve spent time scraping their relatives off the sides of buildings from AQ suicide bombs will appreciate his call tonight for Muslim unity. I leave you with our quote(s) of the day, guaranteed to leave ‘em laughing on DU:
Bush suffers from an addictive personality, and was an alcoholic. I don’t know his present condition (Americans know best about that, as they are experts in alcohol and addiction to it), but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults: lying and gambling. As regards lying, his record is well known, and he has gone down in history as one of its most notorious liars. As for his addiction to gambling, it motivates him to continue to place losing bets until he goes completely bankrupt, which is the obvious psychological motivation behind his Iraq policy…
These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America - which was transformed from the “Great Satan” into the “Closest Ally” - is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Gee, what happened to UBL? Maybe he caught a chill in the cave.
Buck Turgidson on February 13, 2007 at 12:13 AM
I disagree that Bush was, in any way, an alcoholic but the quote on having an addictive personality is interesting. Don’t get me wrong. Nothing these idiots have to say is of any meaning, but Bush does exhibit some stubborn loyalties and frames of reference. For example, Bush has not given up on Iraq; he has not waned in fighting the war on terror (I submit his recent call for a ’surge’of troops as evidence of this), and Bush has been loyal to the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, et. al., until they had to go. Addictive? Well, perhaps. One thing is certain: by this quote:
They are definitely channeling the MSM and far-left talking points to arrive at such a conclusion. They hope that what they’re hearing from these groups is a measurement of how the American public feels. Perhaps they can wait us out after all. Up against our military and a united America they fail. Faced with cut-and-run politicians and a media that serves as a drum beat for them, they win. Sad, but true.
thedecider on February 13, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Bin Laden, (may allah preserve him) with embalming fluid.
Buck Turgidson on February 13, 2007 at 12:20 AM
You left out the warning/suggestion that the Z man had for democrats
William Amos on February 13, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Hmmmmmmmm…….that cannon on the table is sure pointed in an interesting direction.
My money is on UBL sitting around the pool, sipping java with his 50 wives, and rubbing Dinnerjackets feet now and then. If UBL is dead…great….but it wouldn’t surprise me if UBL, Z, and MO are all in a motel 6 outside of Qum.
Limerick on February 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Will they also be “laughing” at the last part of the quote where it’s obvious the islamists are taking a page from the left’s handbook?
Teddy Kennedy couldn’t have said it better himself.
Rick on February 13, 2007 at 12:30 AM
That just means that they’ve traded positions, from pitcher to catcher.
Tony737 on February 13, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Heh, heh…no moo, since a few years ago.
Entelechy on February 13, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I hear bacon grease works better.
Rick on February 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Allah, you use this pic of Zawahiri constantly and I still have to ask: is that a freakin’ dent in his forehead? I mean, look at it? It’s concave! The man looks like he’s been whacked by a ball-peen hammer! Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Just sayin’.
thedecider on February 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Can’t wait for a reply from the HuffPoo, DU or
KPOS“No, we’re not; we absolutely resent the comparison”.
Note - read the above protestation as if expressed by Arianna Huffington, especially the word ‘compaarison’.
Entelechy on February 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Dang! It would be a whole lot easier to keep tract of these people if they just had names like normal people.
R D on February 13, 2007 at 12:36 AM
You know he has to pray to pray more than most. He’s probably ass up at least 15 times a day, and that would cause quite a dent in his head. And from the pics as of late, it’s getting worse.
R D on February 13, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Aaaaand, Zawahiri joins the nutroots. Is Cindy Sheehan his speechwriter?
CP on February 13, 2007 at 12:54 AM
As for the rest, use the Maxim gun.
Kralizec on February 13, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Zawahiri farts and the MSM has an orgasim. Grab for the “catch” towel……… Yes, I agree, disgusting.
No question of the substance, no “Zawahiri lied, People died..”
No detailed analysis of the connection between Zawahiri, Iran, Syria, and the attack and death of American/Coalition {especially Australia, “Thanks, Mates..”} troops….
No Rosie O’Donell moment, no Bill Maher quiwp, no Dixie Chick grammy speech……..
No Zawahiri photo on the cover of “Time” as the “Gingrich who stole Christmas”….
No movie with George Clooney, playing a younger Zawahiri, making the case for defeating the United States along with Global Warming at the same time…..
No reference to the “civil war” actually happening in Europe, since the daily fire bombings are off our TV screens and “F”K Freedom” signs have been banned from our sight…….
No time line and history of Zawahiri, and the true death toll the United States and it’s allies have actually had to deal with………
No, it’s Bush’s fault……. didn’t you hear the Dixie Chicks acceptance speach? Even Al Gore was there, what other proof do you need?
Time for the “Vomit Bucket”…
PinkyBigglesworth on February 13, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Two preliminary words for the blathering bearded schmuck:
Predator drone.
And to eliminatory ones:
Hellfire missile.
Inshallah-di-dah…
profitsbeard on February 13, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Is that a turd leaking out from under his diaper?
Timber Wolf on February 13, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Sometimes I wished he’d just pledge his allegiance to Christ, but then I’d be worried that he’d believe that unbelievers need to be crucified, rather than preached too…
Tim Burton on February 13, 2007 at 3:19 AM
On Bush and Addiction…
Perserverance is not addiction.
Conviction is not addiction.
Faith is not addiction.
Being a student of history, I cannot help but think of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War when I think of G.W. Bush now. And nota bene: I am not a 100% Bushie. His policy south of our border really pisses me off.
I know the following is not an exact match for the War we wage today, but the issues are similar. From unbridled patriotism to self doubt, to treasonous behavior to backstabbing and divise politics, to loss and to despair. Hopefully, we will understand that to retreat is to delay the fight, to strengthen our enemy’s resolve and to multiply the deaths to come.
The truth is that today’s Islamic Radicals want one thing: a World Wide Islamic Caliphate. Why should they reach for less when faced with the weakness show by Europe and the American Left? I wouldn’t.
Anyways…on to the Civil War…see if you can spot similarities to today.
Stage 1: Patriotism!
1. Fort Sumter was fired upon by the Confederacy; Northern citizens enlisted in droves.
2. Northern citizens held picnics and banquettes to honor America and her newly inducted soldiers.
3. Senators pontificated and made bold speeches.
4. The Northern states were united.
5. Lincoln warned the country to be prepared.
Stage 2: Reality
6. The battle was met…defeat experienced.
7. Winter soldiers despaired.
8. Senators started to grumble and nitpick.
9. The army engaged in back stabbing politics
10. The News Media (print newspapers) started to harp and critisize.
11. Lincoln steeled his resolve.
Stage 3: Treason
12. The News Media engaged in what General Grant called treason (reporting troop strength, movements, reporting only defeat and woe–offering succor to the enemy)
13. The opposition party (Democrats) started to undermine the war–a loss in a battle or the whole war meant power for the Democrats.
14. Commanders were shuffled monthly
15. Lincoln maintained his faith in his mission and stood by his policies and the prosecution of the war. He did not adopt a nuanced pose…
Stage 4: Victory
16. The South began to despair–the North wouldn’t give up even when dealt horrific losses.
17. The North began to realize that war means killing.
18. The North began to realize that by killing, the war would end sooner.
19. The Army was allowed wage war with the support of the government, not micromanagement by it.
20. Lincoln convictions won.
ps. sorry for any mispellings and such, once again, I decide to post right before bed…
–Montana
Montana on February 13, 2007 at 3:22 AM
Except that Bush doesn’t imprison those who disagree with him like Lincoln did. Lincoln did that to a huge number of people and virtually all state officials of Maryland. In fact, Maryland has their state anthem dedicated to Lincoln. You really should read it sometime. You’d get a kick out of it. Why? It is such a nasty bitter song. Personally, my favorite lines are Verse IV:
Notice Sic Semper? Yup, the first half of Booth’s assassinating cry…
The first line of the song is pretty good too.
Also in 2004 as opposed to 1862, Bush didn’t order the murder of a bunch of Indians to win Minnesota like Lincoln did.
What? You didn’t know that Lincoln was a true War Criminal? I haven’t even mentioned the encouragement of Union generals to have his soldiers rape and murder, Bush sure isn’t giving that order to US soldiers in Iraq…
1. Fort Sumter was fired upon by the Confederacy; Northern citizens enlisted in droves.
2. Northern citizens held picnics and banquettes to honor America and her newly inducted soldiers.
3. Senators pontificated and made bold speeches.
4. The Northern states were united.
Absolutely not true. They were not united. Ever here of the Corwin Amendment? It said that slavery would be eternally legal. It was proposed by the North and Lincoln even said in his inaugural address that he did not oppose it (Paragraph 29). Even that did not convince the South to return to the Union. At which point many decided that the South had ever right to secession, just as the New England states claimed the right when Jefferson purchased Louisiana.
Besides, your analogy fails on the ground that the “Civil” war was not a fight to extermination, whereas this war against Islam/Islamic Facists is a fight to the death.
The South didn’t despair, in fact for the amount of suffering they went through they actually acted honorably. Now NYC and the Irish Riots…that is another story.
The South continued to think that they would get recognition by France or possibly England (though England was less likely), they had already been given national recognition by the Pope and the Vatican, so they believed other nations would step in and tell Lincoln to knock it off.
Again, there is a huge difference between a war between two Christian nations, one who only wants to be left alone and a war where the aggressor’s stated goal is the mass killing of your people.
Also, the North didn’t do that much killing, their Generals preferred rape and starvation.
Actually, in the case of the South that isn’t true again they didn’t perform mass killings…at least not on the battlefield. Rather they would take prisoners and starve them and abuse them in ways that would make Andersonville look like Club Med. So if you mean they pushed for killing, they did…just not on the battlefield. While Davis begged for prisoner exchanges or for the North to send food to the South for use in the prison’s the North refused to help their own soldiers. Proof that the South was not trying to punish Northern POWs is the fact that all POWs were given the same amount of food as citizens in the region. In Charlotte, they had the same rations as the citizens.
Oh, I forgot Sherman did believe in killing, he’d order Nazi like reprisals upon the population. A battle would occur, then Sherman would order the killing of citizens (both women and elderly) in return for the CSA giving a legitimate fight.
As I said, these are two completely different wars. Rather, this is more like the War in the Pacific than it is a Civil War, except last time the press supported us.
Tim Burton on February 13, 2007 at 3:52 AM
Why is this man still breathing?
georgej on February 13, 2007 at 6:34 AM
About the Civil War….
In Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s book All the Laws but One, he points out that in the north, about half the people were not adverse to the South seceding in peace — right up until Fort Sumter, then the public sentiment turned overwhelming to responding to the Confederacy by waging war.
In fact, negotiations between the United States and the Confederacy over compensation for federal property in the South were underway. The Post Office was still carrying the mail between the Confederacy and the States.
Then the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter. And that changed everything.
In other words, the Confederacy BLEW IT! They would have HAD their independence had they not attacked Fort Sumter.
georgej on February 13, 2007 at 6:43 AM
Could it be that UBL really is taking a dirt nap? We heard whispers back in Feb. of 2002 that he was bagged by a Predator on a snowy hillside. Could this be an anniversary statement of sorts??
Zorro on February 13, 2007 at 6:52 AM
In what sense does this parallel our current situation in Iraq?
What is interesting is the rest of your epistle on this–Lincoln won a war in the face of opposition, press defeatism–because Lincoln had a clear and compelling vision and reason for going to war and because he was a peerless leader. Bush?
It does serve as good reminder to those who constantly whine about how put upon our CIC is–nothing new here folks. Can’t stand the heat etc.
honora on February 13, 2007 at 8:49 AM
I always am amused when people piously decry Sherman’s acts, particularly the infamous march to the sea. The real villian here was Jeff Davis–by this time, the jig was up and every sensible person–including Lee–knew it. Davis could have saved his people enormous suffering had he not been so stubborn. Probably too busy plotting his escape to Mexico–honorable guy.
honora on February 13, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Zawahiri is delinquint in his oft-espoused duty to martyr himself for Allah. What’s the holdup there, fella?
shaken on February 13, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Interesting, Zawahiri promises our allies in Iraq that our forces will soon abandon them, then he admonishes the Democrats for marching with Bush (which shows a lack of knowledge of some of the nuance of our system but I digress). He is more or less admitting that he is depending on the Dems to retreat and surrender Iraq to them.
Verbal Abuse on February 13, 2007 at 8:57 AM
If only to split hairs, but a call to unity of Muslims on the part of Dr. Z may be directed only at “True Muslims” i.e. Sunni. Just a thought…
ConstantSorrow on February 13, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Busy, busy, busy…LOL
honora on February 13, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Where does he say this?
honora on February 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Why do I keep on thinking of Satan and Saddam after the lights went out in the South Park movie? Guess Omar’s driving.
BohicaTwentyTwo on February 13, 2007 at 9:25 AM
There you have it honora.
Verbal Abuse on February 13, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves Z-Man. The Dems in the House are debating Iraq policy this week and I’m sure they will give you some cause to celebrate. You just keep that TV in your cave tuned in to CSPAN this week and I’m sure you won’t be disappointed.
CliffHanger on February 13, 2007 at 9:51 AM
You mean the Vietnam reference? It seems to me he is making reference to “America” meaning the people–he clearly lumps the Dems in with Bush et al in the first paragraph.
Funny how people forget who was president when we gave up the ghost in Vietnam. Well maybe more convenient than funny.
honora on February 13, 2007 at 11:47 AM
honora, my lady friend, you are witty, intelligent and amusing, especially when jumping ‘fiercely’ into arguments. All arguments have at least two sides, or two interpretations. Just a couple of examples:
Ronald Reagan comes to mind - harp, harp, harp - then, hero, hero, hero…not that many years later. Miraculously history changes quickly, often.
…and funny how people intentionally forget who was president when the Vietnam war started…
Just a little tempering, over tea/coffee this morning, because all of us, presidents included, don’t have crystal balls to function by, and gypsies’ cards are not reliable.
Entelechy on February 13, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Hmmm, I wonder what that drunken fool, Teddy, was saying then.
Rick on February 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I dunno. But I do believe that the very first advisors were sent by Ike, not JFK as some state. Either way it was Johnson who escalated. He also had a cadre of fools around him–remember Westmoreland? Hell he looked like he came straight from Central Casting, too late we all discovered it was liar, liar pants on fire.
honora on February 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Honora, the people who ‘gave up’ on Vietnam were the Democrats when they voted for the Case-Church Amendment in 1973.
I do believe that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in those days.
RedinBlueCounty on February 13, 2007 at 1:26 PM
AP, remember how I told you in ‘04 and ‘05 that OBL was Purina Vulture Chow. Granted, I was a bit far up the Ring Road from Tora Bora, but still…
major john on February 13, 2007 at 1:33 PM
honora,
“War Powers”, “aid cut” “South Vietnam” “North Vietnam tanks” “Democrats in Congress” try some of those terms out…
major john on February 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Does this sound familiar to anyone? I wonder how long it will take to go from a “non-binding resolution” on the Iraq War to an amendment forbidding military action in the Middle East?
RedinBlueCounty on February 13, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Yes, but the vote was overwhelming, veto-proof–Case of course was a Republican. And the amendment was 6 months after the Paris Peace Accords were signed. The amendment was designed to stop the exec from more entanglements in SE Asia minus Congressional approval.
Nixon’s slogan in 1968″ “Peace with Honor”.
honora on February 13, 2007 at 1:52 PM
How could the President count on Congressional approval of further military involvement in SE Asia when Congress just cut the legs off of the President’s ability to project forces as needed?
You’re right when you say that some Republican’s backed this amendment, just as calls for the current non binding resolution also has Republican backers. That doesn’t mean that the Democrats were not involved as they were in the Majority and this amendment could not have passed without their overwhelming approval.
But you miss the most important aspect. Congress decided that the President should not be allowed to be the Commander In Chief concerning the Vietnam war and passed an amendment that directly affected the President’s ability to command that war and that interference allowed the South to be invaded. That congressional action lead to the death of millions.
The President had, at that time, forced the North to sign a cease fire WHILE reducing the number of American troops involved in that war. He started a bombing campaign that forced the North to this agreement. That was a remarkable achievement, in my opinion.
Only after Congress refused to allow any further military action in SE Asia did the north build up their forces to the point that they could invade the South. They knew that America could not intervene on the behalf of the South. This is why the Vietnam war was considered a failure.
It was Congress’s interference in the war that allowed the North to invade, not any decision by the President. It was not President Nixon that fail South Vietnam, it was Congress.
RedinBlueCounty on February 13, 2007 at 2:14 PM
There are some excellent debates going on right now in the House of Representatives on C-SPAN.
The Pubs are listing out accurate and specific information and the dems are, literally, whining and eager to embrace defeat.
The dems are actually saying that the conflict in Iraq has no connection whatsoever to the global war on terror.
Criminal negligence and exceedingly dangerous to American Interests worldwide. No other way to put it.
They should vote on this ridiculous resolution and be put on record as the cowards and traitors they are.
techno_barbarian on February 13, 2007 at 2:38 PM
That doesn’t surprise me as most democrats believe that terrorism is “just a nuisance” and not an actual threat to America and our allies around the world.
RedinBlueCounty on February 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Some of the speeches the Pubs are making are strikingly powerful.
The dems strategy is to trot out all their military veterans to endorse this resolution. They’re saying this is all Iraq’s problem and that we shouldn’t be helping them.
The dems absolutely refuse to see that if we ‘re-deploy’ we’re just going to have to go back in, and that it will be vastly more difficult, as we will have to re-take areas we now control. Not to mention that we will not have the good will and cooperation from the Iraqi Army forces, seeing as how we will have abandoned them.
It is a foolish and dangerous thing to even contemplate. Where is the spine of the Democratic Party? Where is the logic and good sense? What they’re proposing is, quite literally, insanity.
techno_barbarian on February 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I repeat, the Congress acted AFTER the Paris Peace agreement was signed. Meaning after the war was declared over. Does Congress bear responsibility? Sure, but let’s try to tell the whole story–Nixon ran for office in 68 promising to end the war.
honora on February 14, 2007 at 10:16 AM