Al Quieda Treasure Chest of Documents

Along with the taking out of Zarqawi, a veritable treasure chest of Al Quieda documents was taken into possession by the Iraquis and Coalition Forces.
The information being gleaned from these documents id providing an amazing insight into Al Quieda. A view that has not been available to the public.
Here a re several websites with information re:these documents and what they contain.

[quote]Iraq Announces Info From Al-Zarqawi Raid
Jun 15, 6:22 AM (ET), By KIM GAMEL
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq’s national security adviser said Thursday a “huge treasure” of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

He called it a “huge treasure … a huge amount of information.”

(AP) Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie holds up a copy of a document purported to have…

When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said “there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket.”

“We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq,” al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in “pretty bad shape,” politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.[/quote]
What has come to light is the international aspect of Al Quiedas operations and their long term plans for anarchy.

[quote]Documents: Al-Qaida Sought U.S.-Iran War
Jun 15 11:04 AM US/Eastern, By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq: A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a “huge treasure” of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.

The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaida.

Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi’s hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi.

“We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location,” he said. “This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house.”

The document also said al-Zarqawi planned to try to destroy the relationship between the United States and its Shiite allies in Iraq.

[color=green]While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, “time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance,” the document said. [/color][/quote]
And perhaps the most revealing of Al Quiedas actual plans…and illustrative of the complicity they are receiving…
This one is the most loaded document I’ve seen so far.

[quote]Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document
Jun 15 8:58 AM US/Eastern
By The Associated Press

Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:

" The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi’a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

  1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

  2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

  3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

  4. By tightening the resistance’s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

  5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance’s assaults.

  6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

  7. By taking advantage of the resistance’s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

  1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

  2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

  3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

  4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

  5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

  6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

  7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi’a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi’a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi’a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

  1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

  2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi’a will weaken and close this front.

  3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi’a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

  4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi’a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

  5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

  6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

  7. To weaken the media’s side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi’a.

  8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

  9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

---- snip —

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

  1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi’a Iranian side.

  2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi’a Iranian side.

  3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

  4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi’a fingerprints and evidence.

  5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

  6. [color=red]By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.[/color]

Let us hope for success and for Allahs help.[/quote]
This is probably the most relevant group of items I have posted regarding the Middle East conflict so far.

TC, interesting info.

So in light of the fact that we have evidence suggesting that Al-Kajda wants a war in Iran, how many forumosans still want that same war?

Should we give the terrorists what they want?

I guess the administration flip-flopped on this recently, so Republicans are apparently free to take either position (talk to them or bomb them).

We have? Like the proof Al-Qaida was in league with Saddam? And all the WDMs burried in Iraq? The “they will welcome us with flowers”? The Chinese not getting involved in the Korean War if the 38th parallel is crossed? Hitler not attacking the USSR in 1941?

The articles I read all had in common the disclaimer: “autheticity can not be verified yet”. Anything of substance telling this wasn’t leaked on purpose? By Iran? By the U.S.? By Zarqawi’s rivals in Al Qaida who ratted him out?

As nice as this sounds as news … given the track record of “Intelligence Agencies” left, middle and right I’d say I will wait a bit with the hip-hip-hooray!

Besides that, the “attack Iran will tie down more U.S. forces and sow dissent in Iraq” is news now?


I’ll wait till the blinding flash of the obvious has subsided on that one.

And because Zarqawi is claimed to have also noticed what going at war with Iran means now exactly what to U.S. policies again? Nothing or … well, nothing?

[quote=“s.b.”]TC, interesting info.
So in light of the fact that we have evidence suggesting that Al-Kajda wants a war in Iran, how many forumosans still want that same war?
Should we give the terrorists what they want?
I guess the administration flip-flopped on this recently, so Republicans are apparently free to take either position (talk to them or bomb them).[/quote]s.b -
I speak 4 languages fairly well and another 3 or 4 good enough to stay out of most trouble, order food, find a bathroom and get to the airport…and I have no fucking idea what you are saying in your post.
Stick that babelfish in your ear and try again.

So Al Quesadilla and neoconservatives both want the U.S. to attack Iran?

Troubled minds think alike.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“s.b.”]TC, interesting info.
So in light of the fact that we have evidence suggesting that Al-Kajda wants a war in Iran, how many forumosans still want that same war?
Should we give the terrorists what they want?
I guess the administration flip-flopped on this recently, so Republicans are apparently free to take either position (talk to them or bomb them).[/quote]s.b -
I speak 4 languages fairly well and another 3 or 4 good enough to stay out of most trouble, order food, find a bathroom and get to the airport…and I have no fucking idea what you are saying in your post.
Stick that babelfish in your ear and try again.[/quote]

Seems pretty clear to me.
According to the document, without commenting on its authenticity:

Al-qaeda-in-Iraq wants the US to get into a military confrontation with Iran.
Since some Forumosans have also expressed their support for this, does that mean that they are objectively pro-al-Qaeda?

As for flip-flop, that’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention:

[quote]THE U-TURN POLICY ON IRAN…The Bush administration’s policy on Iran was, for the most part, unambiguous. The president believed the United States should not take part in negotiations with the Iranians and Europeans, should not offer Iran nuclear fuel to be used in a peaceful nuclear energy program, and should not offer Iran any incentives that might “reward bad behavior.”

Indeed, any suggestions from Democrats that the administration try a more engaged, carrot-like approach was immediately dismissed as “appeasement.” Shortly before the 2004 presidential election, Condoleezza Rice told Fox News, “This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote ‘engaged.’”

I’m glad to see the administration has come around to more progressive approach, but let’s not forget this is a world-class, Grade-A flip-flop.

The confidential diplomatic package backed by Washington and formally presented to Iran on Tuesday leaves open the possibility that Tehran will be able to enrich uranium on its own soil, U.S. and European officials said.

That concession, along with a promise of U.S. assistance for an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program, is conditioned on Tehran suspending its current nuclear work until the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency determines with confidence that the program is peaceful. U.S. officials said Iran would also need to satisfy the U.N. Security Council that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, a benchmark that White House officials believe could take years, if not decades, to achieve.

But the Bush administration and its European allies have withdrawn their demand that Iran abandon any hope of enriching uranium for nuclear power, according to several European and U.S. officials with knowledge of the offer. The new position, which has not been acknowledged publicly by the White House, differs significantly from the Bush administration's stated determination to prevent Iran from mastering technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

The Moose explained, “If a Kerry Administration had offered this deal, there would be the equivalent of conservative rioting in the streets. An impeachment resolution would be offered. The theme of the day on talk radio would be the betrayal of America.” I think this is absolutely right.

The same Bush administration that said it would isolate Iran – and which said we shouldn’t vote for Kerry because he might be inconsistent on national security matters – has offered Iran a very handsome package, including international aid on a nuclear reactor, airplane parts, and an enrichment program of its very own.

In other words, Bush’s new Iranian policy is to the left of where Kerry was during the '04 campaign, when the GOP blasted Kerry’s approach as dangerously soft. What’s more, the administration has embraced the very policies it once denounced.

Insert joke about Bush being “against this policy before he was for it” here.[/quote] … l/2006_06/

In my opinion, the translation of the document “found” at the site, as said by the Iraqi minister in a claim of authenticity, or was it really “found” at another former site of Abu Masad’s residence, as numerous news reports have contradictorally reported, is either not authentic, or is extremely loosely translated. The reason for this is that the document makes no references to Allah. This is quite different than the style of letters written by any Islamic people, due to the stipulations of the Quran that your words and thoughts at all times must be full of praises for God. For an example of Al-Qaeda writing, see letter about jihad. It is loaded full of “All praises to Allah”, references to “believing” and “infidels”, and the like.

For what purpose, then, would US forces plant false documents around the site of the targeted killing of Abu Masad? to coincide with other propaganda over Iraq?

The Aardvark on Zarqawi:

[quote]The Zarqawi docs… seriously, now.

So about that “treasure trove” of documents allegedly found with Zarqawi which proves that the insurgency is on the run, that American military strategy is working, that the Iraqi security forces are developing into a formidable force, and that all in all everything is going America’s way… well, how can I put this?

Let’s just say that were I a strategist for a military which had just killed an insurgency leader such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and seized a bunch of documents full of actionable intelligence, I might not choose to, you know, release them to the media. On the other hand, had I just killed an insurgency leader such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and I wanted to follow up on that operational success by sowing confusion and disarray among his followers (and maybe even scoring some points with the domestic public opinion which my Secretary of Defense has identified as a principle theater of conflict), I might very well release a bunch of “documents” showing that the recently deceased was highly pessimistic about his prospects and that his movement was on the run. (I might also announce that said movement had just declared some random character as its new leader, just to sow more confusion.)

Oh, enough delicacy. These documents seem like a fairly obvious bit of strategic communication, psy-ops, whatever you want to call it. Nothing wrong with that as a way of pressing a temporary advantage against the jihadi wing of the insurgency, spreading confusion, that sort of thing - kind of a textbook move, even. Just as long as nobody serious is silly enough to actually believe any of it. Wouldn’t want blowback now, would we?

The one intriguing part of the documents is al-Qaeda’s alleged grand plan to foment a war between the United States and Iran. That actually makes sense - it would serve both Zarqawi’s anti-Shi’a agenda and bin Laden’s “clash of civilizations” agenda. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if that part were accurate enough, even if the documents aren’t real. But - and here I enter pure speculation mode - in whose interest would including that bit in the documents be, were we to assume that the documents are not 100% authentic? Let’s assume that the drafters think that all other things equal, the US (at least under this administration) is more likely to do the opposite of whatever it thinks al-Qaeda wants (never having heard of Brer Rabbit, I suppose, so that bin Laden telling us to do something is good enough reason to do the opposite… Bin Laden tried to beat Bush, we must vote for him! Bin Laden said we should get out of Iraq, we must stay in!). So documents showing that al-Qaeda wants a war between the US and Iran would make such a war less likely, all other things equal. Just the sort of thing a pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia Prime Minister might want, no?

UPDATE: the Washington Post notes several irregularities in the “document”: “The authenticity of the document, which closely echoes accounts of insurgent strategy offered by Iraq’s Shiite political leaders, could not be independently verified. It was written in a style different from typical statements issued by al-Qaeda in Iraq, which refer to Shiites as “rejectionists” or “dogs” and to U.S. forces as “crusaders.”” There are other reasons for doubts, too. All of which reinforces my suspicion that the document (released and publicized by Shia national security advisor Mouwafak al-Rubaie) was whipped up by the Iraqi Shia-led government for PR purposes. [/quote]

Some interesting, and thoroughly predicatble, responses.
An old saw --> Intel is only as good as those who interpret it.

This is a fluid situation and its not, IMO, very smart to draw conclusions at this point.

Speaking of documents describing the current situation in Iraq… … 006/06/16/

As always, use your own discretion on the validity of the documents in question

MikeN -
I seem to remeber the same sort of “news” coming from the embassay folks in Saigon many years ago.
And from the same folks in Nicaragua in the late 70’s.
And from Beirut about the same time.
And several other emabassies at different times and in different places.

I do not discount their concerns for one minute.
They are living in a war zone and the enemy has demonstrated repeatedly that everyone is a target in their eyes.
I would post some news of other perspectives re:the situation in Iraq, but that only seems to generate derision and a shofting of the thread to myself rather than the posted articles.

Lets hope these folks can live, do their jobs and return to their families safe & sound.

Oh heck…here is one anyway.
Good article…even has pictures…

I admit that my dislike for Bush & Co. may colour my reaction to what’s happening in Iraq, but I still don’t think things are heading in an overall positive direction.

Getting Zarqawi was good; finally setting up a government was better.
The trend toward outright civil war has slowed since Feb-March; OTOH ethnic separation is still growing.

A position shared by Middle-East professor Juan Cole

To expand, I think that the US should start announcing a date for troop withdrawals, whether the Iraqi gov’t likes it or not; whether it helps the Republicans in 2006 or not (and, alas, it will).

Right now, the Shiiites are more than happy to let the Americans get killed fighting the Sunnis (while offering amnesty to ‘terrorists’ who have killed American soldiers).

Tell them they have to face up to making a deal or they’re on their own.

Seems like your wish is their command. Clearly the spineless farckers are going to do the dirty bolt on another civilian population previously given oodles of assurances to join the great civilising mission. Heavy price for those nameless faceless suckers, but at least the election might go the right way. How soon before the civilians of Iraq that had hoped for a reasonable outcome join the lengthy queue of the aggrieved? Let’s ask the Vietnamese, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Somalis and Afghanis, etc, just how good are American promises? Come stick your neck out for us, we’ll split when we fucking like.


Uhm, do the American blacks and latinos and asians and countless other immigrants and nationalities deserve this shit?

I expect better criticisms from you HG.


Fuck Amerikkkan lies! [/quote]

Well that’s interesting, cos now that quote isn’t a quote. In any case I used the word Amerikkka, which generally excludes your usual poor as piss cannon fodder. My bile is directed at your country’s ruling elite, by whom I mean the wankers that have it in their own substantial self interest and who sustain enough belief in a system that lets down the majority of its sufferers to get out of bed and make a choice on a given election day.


[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”][quote]Quote:
Fuck Amerikkkan lies! [/quote]

Well that’s interesting, cos now that quote isn’t a quote. In any case I used the word Amerikkka, which generally excludes your usual poor as piss cannon fodder. My bile is directed at your country’s ruling elite, by whom I mean the wankers that have it in their own substantial self interest and who sustain enough belief in a system that lets down the majority of its sufferers to get out of bed and make a choice on a given election day.


Ah, and I thought you were just blind with rage. :unamused:

My mistake.

Whatever…enjoy your rant. I’ll still like you in the morning.

Have you ever met him? Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Twisted


Nope, to my dismay, not face to face. I was busy being sober that weekend. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything though.

[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”][I knew the yanks would do their standard chocolate soldier routine - if they can’t mow them down with superior fire power they split. Useless fucking pussies the lot of them, they always melt as soon as it heats up.


Too true. They can’t deal with complex problems without being macho. Compare Somalia where it was so dangerous the media were on the beach to greet them and the quiet way in which the British sorted out Sierra Leone; quietly, effectively and without the ape-like chest beating of the Americans.


Ah, quietly and effectively…

[quote] A dirt alley strewn with trash and puddles of black sewage an Iraqi teenager smiled at me, slicing his throat with his fingers, as a gang of more than 30 sulky adolescents chanted “Down with Britain” and “Long live the Mehdi Army”.

“F*** off,” a second teenager shouted at one of the 12 British officers in our foot patrol. Others yelled taunts of “RPG, RPG” — rocket-propelled grenade. As we walked on, the teenagers began crowding round the soldiers, who kept their assault rifles pointed at the rooftops in case of snipers.

After 15 minutes, with the mood growing steadily uglier, the patrol piled back into its vehicles, which was when the stone throwing began. Rocks bounced off the sides of the armoured jeeps. A hard mud clod smashed into my vehicle’s sweltering confines as the patrol returned to base for a respite.

That was just a minor incident in one of Basra’s deadliest weekends since the US-led invasion of Iraq three years ago.

Their platoon tries to avoid going out on Saturdays, because that is when the worst attacks happen. [/quote]

Remember all those articles about how the Brits had such a superior way of doing business? They were handed the most peaceful areas and they still mucked it up. Basra is under control of the militias and the British have basically closed their eyes.

Apparently US and British private military companies operating in Iraq employ some 50,000 people who operate under no law. They cannot be touched by the Iraqi government and they are not subjected to militray law. Billion dollar businesses. Subsidiaries of Haliburton I wonder…

hem hem…link please. :unamused: