Ayman Drops New Tape, Disses Khamenei

Michael C. Moynihan | September 8, 2008

Perhaps it is time for Iran to tweak its foreign policy and address the "root causes" that so inflame the passions of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri and his comrades in the al-Qaeda leadership. Seems as if Dr. Z thinks that Iran's Islamic Revolution has gone a bit soft on the Crusaders. Reuters has details:

In a segment on the video aired by al Jazeera, Zawahri attacked Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, questioning the Islamic Republic's anti-Western stand.

"The (leader of Iran) collaborates with the Americans in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and recognises the puppet regimes in both countries, while he warns of death and destruction to anyone who touches an inch of Iranian soil," Zawahri said.

Al Qaeda, a militant Sunni Islamist group, often criticises predominantly Shi'ite Iran, which has good relations with Afghanistan's anti-Taliban leaders and Iraq's Shi'ite-led government.

In a fundamentalist version of an East Coast-West Coast beef, al-Zawahiri also took some swipes at Hezbollah for not retaking the Golan Heights from Israel. From Al-Jazeera:

"The most bizarre and astounding thing is that Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah's leader] celebrates a victory every year.

"What victory?" he said. "Retreating 30 miles backwards?" he said.

Full article.

It's hard to know what to make of this, though with al-Zawahiri's Iraqi surrogates in retreat, and Tehran engaging with the Maliki government, it doesn't come as a huge surprise. It's easy to see a parallel between the factionalism inherent in radical Islam—exacerbated by six years of battlefield combat with American and Nato forces in Afghanistan and Iraq—and the dissolution of the Republican cause in Spain, which spent the an inordinate amount of time fighting amongst itself instead of trying to defeat Franco. Let's hope for a repeat.

Lawrence Wright's excellent 2002 New Yorker backgrounder on Zawahiri can be read here.

Comments

|9.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#

I know Iran is run by AlQuada FoxNews and the NY Times agree on this much, but it is amazing to hear about some of the bitter rivalries within the seemingly unified front of islamofacism.

|9.8.08 @ 4:35PM|#

"What victory?" he said. "Retreating 30 miles backwards?" he said.

Oooh, burned.

|9.8.08 @ 4:43PM|#

I wonder if the Iranians have the contacts to get that perp caught and/or killed?

-jcr

|9.8.08 @ 4:47PM|#

"Al Qaeda, a militant Sunni Islamist group, often criticises predominantly Shi'ite Iran, which has good relations with Afghanistan's anti-Taliban leaders and Iraq's Shi'ite-led government."

This may be news to snarky neocon propagandists such as Moynihan, but I think everyone else was aware that Iran and al-Qaeda are not allies.

Surrender Monkey|9.8.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Did he just call Hezbollah "French"?

thoreau|9.8.08 @ 4:56PM|#

First, Moynihan, I hope you purchased some carbon offsets after burning all that straw:
Perhaps it is time for Iran to tweak its foreign policy and address the "root causes" that so inflame the passions of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri and his comrades in the al-Qaeda leadership. Seems as if Dr. Z thinks that Iran's Islamic Revolution has gone a bit soft on the Crusaders.

Second, is it really news to you that radical religious from different sects might hate each other at least as much as they hate us?

Third, of all the people that you could have compared radical Muslims to, it fascinates me that you chose to compare them with enemies of a right-wing dictator. Were there no other factional movements that you could think of?

Dagny T.|9.8.08 @ 5:01PM|#

Just when you thought it was safe to get rid of your "Ayatollah Asshola" t-shirt.

|9.8.08 @ 5:01PM|#

...the dissolution of the Republican cause in Spain, which spent the an inordinate amount of time fighting amongst itself...

So who is the Islamic Hemingway?

Kolohe|9.8.08 @ 5:03PM|#

"The (leader of Iran) collaborates with the Americans in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and recognises the puppet regimes in both countries, while he warns of death and destruction to anyone who touches an inch of Iranian soil,"

This seems like an eminently sensible foreign policy for, well, just about anyone.

BakedPenguin|9.8.08 @ 5:20PM|#

Just when you thought it was safe to get rid of your "Ayatollah Asshola" t-shirt.

...But it works for all the Ayatollahs! Ayatollah Zanjani, Ayatollah Fadlallah...why, as we speak, Ayatollah Rohani and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!"

|9.8.08 @ 6:02PM|#

"What victory?" he said. "Retreating 30 miles backwards?" he said.

Ay-ohhhhh!!! Take my two oldest wives...please.

|9.8.08 @ 6:03PM|#

I really like the assertion that the schism between Shiites and Sunnis has been exacerbated in the past six years.

Mr. Moynihan, do you know what the Taliban did to the Iranian embassy staff when they captured Kabul a decade and a half ago?

lunchstealer|9.8.08 @ 6:35PM|#

"What victory?" he said. "Retreating 30 miles backwards?" he said.

Wait. Isn't retreating backwards the same as advancing? Does the law of double negatives apply in military maneuver? Certainly I'd always heard that it did for the French with they're doctrine of never surrender, never retreat, but always advance to the rear and allow the Germans to surrender on terms that allow them to keep control of most of France.

|9.8.08 @ 6:44PM|#

Is Al-Qaeda anti Israel?
Have they carried out any operations against Israel?
I searched the web and couldn't find a single operation against Israel! It makes you wonder if Al-Qaeda actually works for Israel! You never know!

|9.8.08 @ 6:48PM|#

Fundie Sunnites really don't like fundie Shi'ites. News at 11.

Rationalitate|9.8.08 @ 6:48PM|#

"Excellent backgrounder"? Are you serious? That article is awful - it glosses over the single most important part of this life: his time spent in Russia. While Wright just reports what al-Zawahiri has to say - I was caught by the Russians but thank god they didn't figure me out, despite the fact that I'm a huge terrorist kingpin - the truth is a lot more interesting and telling. From al-Zawahiri's copiously-cited Wikipedia article:

In 1996, Zawahiri and his EIJ group were expelled from Sudan following a failed assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and their killing of two boys for betraying the EIJ. At this time he is said to have "become a phantom"[44] but is thought to have traveled widely to "Switzerland and Sarajevo. ... A fake passport he was using shows that he traveled to Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong." In late 1996 he was detained in Russia for six months by the FSB after he was caught trying to cross the border into Chechnya without a visa, posing as a Sudanese merchant.[44] According to FSB spokesman Sergei Ignatchenko, "He had four passports, in four different names and nationalities. We checked him out in every country, but they could not confirm him. We could not keep him forever, so we took him to the Azerbaijani border and let him go."[45] He was apparently put on trial, but was acquitted and subsequently released.[46] However, some have raised doubts as to the true nature of al-Zawahiri's encounter with the Russians: Jamestown Foundation scholar Evgenii Novikov has argued that it seems unlikely that the Russians would not have been able to determine who he was, given their well-trained Arabists and the obviously suspicious act of Muslims crossing illegally a border with multiple false identities and encrypted documents in Arabic.[47] The trial of al-Zawahiri which led to his release from Russian custody was also highly unusual, in that criminal conviction rates in Russia are around 99%.[48] Assassinated former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko alleged, among other things, that during this time, al-Zawahiri was indeed being trained by the FSB,[49] and that he was not the only link between al-Qaeda and the FSB.[50] Former KGB officer and writer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy supported Litvinenko's claim and said that Litvinenko "was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahiri's arrival in Russia, who was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-1997."[51]

AKA, he's an FSB agent. Let's not also forget that al-Zawahiri was probably the mastermind behind 9/11.

|9.8.08 @ 7:20PM|#

To: Rationalitate | September 8, 2008, 6:48pm | #
RE: Zawahiri is an FSB agent

Use your head; has Al-Qaeda carried any operation that has any benefit for Russia? Their main activity so far has been in creating chaos, war, terror and division between Shia and Sunni; and killing lots of Muslims (they have killed by far more Muslims than they have killed coalition forces!).
So, who benefits from Al-Qaeda operation? Who has vast economical interest in the region? Who benefits from creating division amongst the Muslims? If you answer these question you can find the masters of Zawahiri.
PS: The fact that USA has not been able to find these people after 6 years with all the troops; intelligent, technology and over 400 satellites flying over their heads everyday and taking hi-res photos by itself is a proof that Zawahiri works for them! Does USA really want to arrest Zawahiri? Why would they? It will end the war on Terror game!

Paul|9.8.08 @ 7:49PM|#

Mr. Moynihan, do you know what the Taliban did to the Iranian embassy staff when they captured Kabul a decade and a half ago?

Link, joe. I'd like to read about this. Seriously.

The Lounsbury|9.8.08 @ 8:52PM|#

Perhaps Moynihan is a bit dim, but Shi'ite, especially Twelver Shi'ite fundamentalism has always been rather at odds with Sunni salafism. In fact, this little "difference of opinion and not particularly caring for each other to the point of allying with the Christians" dates back quite a few centuries. Perhaps Moynihan might care to catch up, eh?

Talking about "Radical Islam" in this fashion makes about as much sense as talking about "Radical Xtianity" and then going on to confuse conservative Catholocism with Radical American Lunatic White 'Nationalist' Protestantism as some bloody coherent entity.

Ah, re the small unpleasantness between the Talebans and the Iranians, this article gives the Sep 98 note, as it happens the Taleban did fatally unpleasant things to the Iranian diplos. Ah yes, the IHT has the wider note including the fine little massacres of Afghan Shi'ites that the very very al-Qaeda friendly and instigated Talebans indulged in.

Drooling Morons like Pipes and others who like to pretend Iran and the nihilistic nuts of Al Qaeda are one of a piece are pure idiots, or dishonest carptetbaggers.

|9.8.08 @ 9:03PM|#

Paul,

I don't have a link.

The Taliban slaughtered the staff of the Iranian embassy.

Drooling Morons like Pipes and others who like to pretend Iran and the nihilistic nuts of Al Qaeda hey, let's not forget Arab nationalists, Baathists, and tribalists (on the occasions they aren't actively allied with us, then they're awesome).

thoreau|9.8.08 @ 9:04PM|#

When googling I don't find anything about a slaughter at the Iranian embassy in Kabul. However, like The Lounsbury said, I do find some stuff about a 1998 massacre at the Iranian consulate in Mazar-i-Sharif, during a massacre of the Hazara. Other articles note that Iran was backing the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

Saying that the Taliban and the Iranian regime are part of the same Islamofascist threat is like equating Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland because they're all armed Christians fighting for their religious group.

thoreau|9.8.08 @ 9:06PM|#

I wonder if Moynihan would equate the Kurdistan Workers Party and Turkish generals launching a coup. I mean, they're both a bunch of Middle Easterners of Muslim heritage (I don't know if the Turkish generals really practice their religion, though) who seek power at gunpoint, right?

|9.8.08 @ 10:39PM|#

I just learned that the Islamofacist Shiites and Sunnis sometimes really don't like each other thanks to Moynihan's excellent work.

Upon learning this I used the information superhighway and discovered that the US was giving the Taliban money right up until 2001 and strangely we still seem to be fighting these undemocratic people. It is a shame that we didn't know anything about the Taliban being so mean before 9/11.

I also learned that the US helped organize special flights for the Bin Laden family to get out of the US without any questioning in the days right after 9/11. Doesn't it seem as if we could possibly get some useful info from the bin ladens?

Jim Henley|9.8.08 @ 11:13PM|#

Michael, do you think we have any chance of prying Mao away from Kruschev?

Rationalitate|9.8.08 @ 11:45PM|#

Use your head; has Al-Qaeda carried any operation that has any benefit for Russia? Their main activity so far has been in creating chaos, war, terror and division between Shia and Sunni; and killing lots of Muslims (they have killed by far more Muslims than they have killed coalition forces!).
So, who benefits from Al-Qaeda operation? Who has vast economical interest in the region? Who benefits from creating division amongst the Muslims? If you answer these question you can find the masters of Zawahiri.

Are you kidding? Every single one of al-Qaeda's operations since al-Zawahiri joined (in 1997) has benefited Russia. The East African embassy bombings led Western investors to pull out of the Afghan gas pipeline that would have eased Russia's monopoly on getting energy out of the region, for fear that the US would invade Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda specialist Lawrence Wright wrote that the real goal was to "to lure the United States into Afghanistan, which was already being called 'The Graveyard of Empires.'" Though it never materialized, the effect and subsequent alienation of the Taliban was enough to kill the pipeline project and guarantee Russian energy hegemony.

Then 9/11. The big one. The one that causes all sorts of wars and sends the price of oil and natural gas skyrocketting. Energy commodities, you might remember, are Putin's lifeline - there's no way Russia would be where it is, and Putin on top of it all, were it not for the high energy prices that coincided with al-Zawahiri's joining al-Qaeda, and the long string of attacks that came after. Look at a chart of historical oil prices (I presume the same would be similar with natural gas): you'll notice that the huge increase starts in 1997, and REALLY takes off after the 9/11 attacks.

|9.9.08 @ 12:15AM|#

The Spain example came to mind for obvious reasons (and it is a period I have long been interested in). There was no sinister subtext. I'm not sure what your PKK reference means. All of this harrumphing (That dim Moynihan doesn't understand the difference between all these brown people!) requires you to believe that Sunni and Shia terrorists--AQI and Iran, for instance--have never worked together in any major capacity. So I wonder, why did Reuters makes this section of the tape a news story? They must be "neocons" or something. Why don't you dial down the lazy snark and conspiracy theories about choosing examples of "right-wing dictators" and make a serious point.

|9.9.08 @ 3:44AM|#

Use your head; has Al-Qaeda carried any operation that has any benefit for Russia? Their main activity so far has been in creating chaos, war, terror and division between Shia and Sunni; and killing lots of Muslims (they have killed by far more Muslims than they have killed coalition forces!).
So, who benefits from Al-Qaeda operation? Who has vast economical interest in the region? Who benefits from creating division amongst the Muslims? If you answer these question you can find the masters of Zawahiri.
PS: The fact that USA has not been able to find these people after 6 years with all the troops; intelligent, technology and over 400 satellites flying over their heads everyday and taking hi-res photos by itself is a proof that Zawahiri works for them! Does USA really want to arrest Zawahiri? Why would they? It will end the war on Terror game!

The "Zawahiri-as-FSB-agent" thing strikes me as a crazy conspiracy theory. Its probably wrong. But that doesn't make your crazy conspiracy theory right. Arresting Zawahiri would not "end the war on Terror game" (there would still be other wanted terrorists out there), but it would give Bush something to brag about for his last few months in office. They've arrested (or killed) high-level terrorist leaders before and that didn't end things either - so I don't see why getting Zawahiri would.

One problem with getting Al-qaeda leaders is that alot of these guys are hiding out in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is not permitting NATO forces on its soil. And the Pakistani army has, thus far, failed to bring in Zawahiri, bin Laden, and some others.

I also learned that the US helped organize special flights for the Bin Laden family to get out of the US without any questioning in the days right after 9/11. Doesn't it seem as if we could possibly get some useful info from the bin ladens?

Let us know when your google searching uncovers the fact that Osama bin Laden is estranged from his family due to his penchant for terrorism.

If that takes too long, you can copy and paste this into your browser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family#cite_note-histchan-3

|9.9.08 @ 5:22AM|#

There was no sinister subtext. I'm not sure what your PKK reference means. All of this harrumphing (That dim Moynihan doesn't understand the difference between all these brown people!) requires you to believe that Sunni and Shia terrorists--AQI and Iran, for instance--have never worked together in any major capacity.

Oh, Lord, he can't tell the difference between al-Qaeda and AQI either.

(BRAIN: OK, I'm outta here. [footsteps, slamming door])

|9.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

*leans into Moynihan's ear*

Uh, mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble. Not mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble. Mumble mumble.

|9.9.08 @ 11:07AM|#

Bush and his business partners(the bin laden family) say they are estranged from Osama Bin Laden so we should never question that no benefit could be gotten from questioning the Bin Laden family.

FBI 'was told to back off bin Laden family'


London: United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, a BBC television program has claimed

BBC2's Newsnight also said on Tuesday night that it had secret documents from the FBI investigation into the terrorist attacks which showed that despite claims that Osama bin Laden is the black sheep of the family, at least two other US-based members are suspected of links with a possible terrorist organisation.

The program said it had obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of bin Laden family members living in the US before September 11. A document showed that special agents from the Washington field office were investigating Abdullah, a close relative of Osama, because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation, it said.

The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and insists it is a charity, the program said, yet Pakistan had expelled WAMY "operatives" and India claimed WAMY was funding an organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir. The FBI did look into WAMY but for some reason agents were pulled off the trail, it said.

The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, Michael Springman, told the program: "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants - people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington ... and I was ignored." He added: "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists, recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets."

advertisement

advertisement
The program said it had been told by a highly placed source in a US intelligence agency there had always been "constraints" on investigating Saudis, but under President George Bush it had become much worse.

After the elections, the intelligence agencies were told to "back off" from investigating the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals. The policy was reversed after September 11, it reported.

|9.9.08 @ 11:16AM|#

the people who keep saying Biden met with the ISI chief who wired Mohamaed Atta 100k should be put in prison camps.
I can't beleive we allow traitors to make videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32AB8SxK21c

|9.9.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Bush and Cheney do want to get Bin Laden but they respect other countries sovereignty too much, they don't want to sent any special forces into Pakistan even if it would lead to capturing the chief of the islamofacist.

Bush and Cheney and Biden are too principled to go after Bin Laden in paksitan. McCain has made it clear that he would follow Bin Laden even to the gates of hell...this clear difference in policy is a good reason to support the semi-libertarain McCain Palin ticket...they can deliver a truly glorius victory in the WAR ON TERROR!

Rationalitate|9.9.08 @ 12:09PM|#

The "Zawahiri-as-FSB-agent" thing strikes me as a crazy conspiracy theory. Its probably wrong.

Sooo, you think Alexander Litvinenko - you know, the one that Putin thought was important enough that they killed him with the most sophisticated nuclear poisoning ever devised - was lying when he said that he knew the people who trained al-Zawahiri in Dagestan? And you also think the Russians are telling the truth when they say that they captured Ayman al-Zawahiri - at the time a very well known terrorist - and despite having one of the most well-developed secret services in the world, couldn't FOR SIX MONTHS figure out who he was?

If Ayman al-Zawahiri isn't in cahoots with the FSB, there's a lot that needs to be explained about his story.

DannyK|9.9.08 @ 5:29PM|#

If Ayman al-Zawahiri isn't in cahoots with the FSB, there's a lot that needs to be explained about his story.


Hey, that's an all-purpose argument, there! Try it with "moon" and "green cheese", for example. There's a lot that needs to be explained!

Michael Moynihan: there was an actual Republican alliance in the Spanish Civil War. Can you point to *any* evidence of an "Islamist Internationale"?

Conversely, different factions in the Middle East have fought among themselves and temporarily allied themselves with useful outsiders since... well, since forever. Certainly since the Crusades, and I'd argue at least since Roman times.

Re-read P.J. O'Rourke's "The two thousand year-old Middle East policy expert", based on Flavius Josephus if you don't believe me. As a bonus, it dates back to when P.J. was still really funny.

|9.9.08 @ 7:32PM|#

Sooo, you think Alexander Litvinenko - you know, the one that Putin thought was important enough that they killed him with the most sophisticated nuclear poisoning ever devised - was lying when he said that he knew the people who trained al-Zawahiri in Dagestan?

Possibly. He's made a few other seemingly improbably claims. (That doesn't justify his murder of course, but I wouldn't presume his credibility to be infallible.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

Another possibility is that they trained him with the intention of having them do something for him (probably something with Chechnya), and he went rouge on them after he was released. It is doubtful that they want him to assist Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. After all, bin Laden has repeatedly stated that he considers Russian actions in Chechnya to be part of the Global Conspiracy Against Muslims that he imagines himself to be fighting.

Cosmotarian Overlord (aka Cosmopolitan Overlord)

Yea during the 1980s the CIA provided aid to members of the anti-Soviet coalition without a very rigorous background check or set of qualifying standards. It does not follow that they knew or hoped that some of them would go nuts on us. There bin Laden family was probably exempt from questioning due to their political connections, though as the article you copy and paste from notes, that policy was reversed after 9-11. It's down near the bottom, after the advertisements.

Bush/Cheney's refusal to openly invade Pakistan is probably not so much about a "respect for sovereignty" as it is about them not wanting the Pakistani government to retaliate by ending their cooperation. There is also the unpleasant possibility of a shooting war with the Pakistani military.

|9.10.08 @ 11:02AM|#

BG:
Zebrinksi brags about helping the islamic radicals get a little army going and how it was such a splendid idea to this day. You really think a more extensive "background check" would have persuaded zebrinski to not back the idea back in the 80's?

"The bin Laden family was probably exempt from questioning due to their political connections, though as the article you copy and paste from notes, that policy was reversed after 9-11. "


so this is why we went after Saudi Arabia so hard after 9/11? no wait instead we made up phony connections to Sadam Hussein and had the entire MSM go along with a pack of lies to trick americans into going to war.

|9.10.08 @ 11:37AM|#

Zebrinksi brags about helping the islamic radicals get a little army going and how it was such a splendid idea to this day. You really think a more extensive "background check" would have persuaded zebrinski to not back the idea back in the 80's?

I don't know what, if anything would make Zebrinski rethink his position. My point was that the US in the 1980s (and the cold war generally) was fixated on containing the Soviet Union. The government's policy was to make the anti-communist alliance in Afghanistan as strong as possible. That policy did not include trying to figure out which of those people were crazy enough to turn on the US afterwards and exclude said crazy people. The funding/assistance of future enemies was the result of a lack of foresight. Or the result of a set of priorities that valued containing communism over reducing the risk of future Islamic extremist terrorism. There is no evidence that it was a calculated policy to set us up in a war on terror down the line.

so this is why we went after Saudi Arabia so hard after 9/11? no wait instead we made up phony connections to Sadam Hussein and had the entire MSM go along with a pack of lies to trick americans into going to war.

Well, analyzing the reasons they went into Iraq (and distinguishing real from stated reasons) is a discussion onto itself. But it's pretty clear that the Saudi government is not allied with Al-Qaeda. It's also clear that invading Saudi Arabia would be a bad idea.

Rationalitate|9.10.08 @ 3:13PM|#

Another possibility is that they trained him with the intention of having them do something for him (probably something with Chechnya), and he went rouge on them after he was released.

The FSB seems to like to keep more direct control over their false flag Chechen operations, and they tend to kill people (like the still-alive "terrorists" that they shot at Nord-ost) after they've served their purpose/if they have valuable information. If al-Zawahiri had proof (or a coherent story) about grave crimes against humanity that the Russian government was committing, and he had in fact totally defected, don't you think he'd have said something?

Possibly. He's made a few other seemingly improbably claims. (That doesn't justify his murder of course, but I wouldn't presume his credibility to be infallible.)

Like what? The only really out-there thing I heard was that he accused Putin of being a pedophile. The other things - Ryazan and the apartment bombings, the FSB's support for terrorists abroad, the Armenian shooting, Nord-ost, Anna Politkovskaya - all seem pretty reasonable to me.

It is doubtful that they want him to assist Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. After all, bin Laden has repeatedly stated that he considers Russian actions in Chechnya to be part of the Global Conspiracy Against Muslims that he imagines himself to be fighting.

He does say it. But isn't it interesting that al-Qaeda has never attacked inside Russia?

|9.10.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Like what? The only really out-there thing I heard was that he accused Putin of being a pedophile. The other things - Ryazan and the apartment bombings, the FSB's support for terrorists abroad, the Armenian shooting, Nord-ost, Anna Politkovskaya - all seem pretty reasonable to me.

Well there's the pedophile thing you mention. Also FSB involvement in the 1999 apartment buildings sounds rather far-fetched. It's kind of like Russia's version of the "9-11 truth movement".

The Lounsbury|9.11.08 @ 4:24PM|#

Regarding the apparently real Moynihan, commenting The Spain example came to mind for obvious reasons .... All of this harrumphing (That dim Moynihan doesn't understand the difference between all these brown people!) requires you to believe that Sunni and Shia terrorists--AQI and Iran, for instance--have never worked together in any major capacity. So I wonder, why did Reuters makes this section of the tape a news story? They must be "neocons" or something. ....

I am actually at a loss as to discern a point in the rather longer original.

The question regarding Reuters of course merely confirms that Moynihan is both dim and not terribly clever with rhetoric: Reuters made it a story because some bloody Journo thought it sounded sexy and cool, and would sell space. Bingo. Rather simple, journalistic marketplace, all that.

As to the odd bit about "requires you to believe that Sunni and Shia terrorists", well, it is hard to tell what precisely the dim fool is on about, but apparently something along the lines of dimly connecting up the occasional cooperation between Al Qaeda types and Shi'ite radicals into some broader Pipesesque faux conspiracy.


That's just plain idiotic. About as idiotic as the types who go on CIA plots and Al Qaeda due to relatively similar moments of quasi cooperation driven by mutual enemies (e.g. Bolsheviks).

Yes, it occurs, now and again, but no it ain't bloody common - rather due to the Al Qaeda types charming inclination to massacring the Shi'a. See Iraq, Afghanistan. Oddly the Shi'a take rather poorly to that, given it's one of the fundamentals of Al Qaeda type Takfir Salafisme, killing the kuffar such as the Shi'a.

Nor is this a recent development as such.

Do try to keep up, eh mate, perhaps read something fundamental?

Rationalitate|9.14.08 @ 2:18AM|#

Well there's the pedophile thing you mention. Also FSB involvement in the 1999 apartment buildings sounds rather far-fetched. It's kind of like Russia's version of the "9-11 truth movement".

Are you kidding??? The 1999 apartment bombings are the most compelling. Have you read the standard media accounts of what went down? You don't even need to read Litvinenko's account to see that it was clearly the FBS who did it - just look at the standard media account of the thing. Compare the 9/11 Wikipedia article (which has almost no mention of the conspiracy theories) to the Ryazan/apartment bombings article (which devotes a lot of space to the theory). The Wikipedia article on the apartment bombings is incredibly well cited, and you really cannot read it and not come away with thinking with 100% certainty that it was the Russians themselves.