When Come Back, Bring Foil; Abu Musab Al-zarquai, Agent Provacateur

assume, arguendo, the following to be true:

on four occasions before the invasion of Iraq bombing raids on zarqawi’s compoud were vetoed.

zarquawi, who “trained with Al-Q in afghanistan” opererated an independent group, al-tawid, for the first year or so of his most flamboyant carryings-on.

These same carryings-on most prominently included suipyrotechnicides of groups of shiite civilians

Z runs a web site, (sorry, I can’t link because I wouldn’t even point the public library browser at ths site unless I swabbed my dna off the keyboard, or better yet,. blew it up, let alone use a computer already identified with me…ya feel me?) where he supposedly brownnoses Osama repeatedly.

A computerdisk is alleged as the provenance for a rambling letter wherein Z is alleged to write thusly to Sama:

We are losing; the insurgency is failing The americans will succeed unless you help me foment shia-sunni civil war

(this is around the first siege of Falluja-remember the heartwarming lines of shia women convoying food and medecine…it was the berlin fuckin’ airlift on camels starring ingrid bergman…people were making snide jokes about George Bush, the Uniter…of Shia and Sunni against America))

In point of fact, of course, the insurgency at the time was waxing, not waning.

In point of fact, Z needed neither permission nor aid from Sama for his operation, because he was not yet a “made man”

We know this because Sama is on TV doing a remote control burning of blood oath acceptance speech, and Al-Tawid officially becomes The Operation of Al Q in Iraq

(these guys show a laudable sensitivity to Trademark Protection…)

Z never disavows the letter which is absurd on its face, (so much so that many thought at the time that it was simple pentagon disinformation–but the foil was just beginning to fly…)

So why would he write this letter? If he were for real, and didn’t write it, he would disavow it because it is so patently good for the americans and bad for the insurgecncy.
If he were for real, and he DID write it, he would disavow it once it became known, for the same reasons. Moreover, there was nothing to tie him to the letter, it was just a t
yped file in a computer–he had total deniabilty if he wanted–why not use it, especialy since the sentiments expressed were not only based on an inaccurate and counter productive if broadcast assessment of the insurgency, but also ran counter to Sama’s position on Shia.

Before Sama accepts Zarqawi’s fealty, he makes a tv appearance, the first in a while. Does not mention Z.

Of all people, those Snively Sturdivants at Fox (it’s worst around 3:30 AM) make cracks about "Well, “Sama didn’t say shit about Z. Is this unrequited love??”

God help us, two weeks later Sama (who should be smarter) is back on tv to sign Z. on.

Z. releases a statement before the election, straight out of the bruce williis villian playbook:

I DEEEECLare war on this unholy deeeem0cracy. I will drown the streets in blood…

Following which, shia turn out (their ticket to heaven is on the line, after all), no rivers of blood, the insurgents are described on Fox as omelette faced losers.

 ("Was that a cheese omelette Shep?"

     " Probably french cheese, Biff"

         "Good one, Shep,-over to you, Chip...")

The election is declared a triumph, in the face of these expectations, the white house press office starts comparing Bush to Churchill, and George Washington’s head on Rushmore suddenly sprouts a pair of goofy ears…

Four of Z’s top lieutenants get rolled up in two weeks–without the usual warning in any well-celled organization that arises when a foot soldier gets taken, and you figure he’ll crack in so and so much time. But four cells falling at once, and no one sees it coming soon enough to go to ground?? Makes ya think…


We are to believe that in the last month or so, Z was “picked up and let go in a few hours because the cops didn’t “know who they had””


When totally incredible stories, that are in themselves an insult to our inteligence are offered, it usually means that they are a misdirection.

When furthermore, the stories as told reflect badly on the source of the story ("we didn’t bomb Z because we didn’t want to underimine our dastardly plot to crank up war fever by eliminating a dangerous guy…) one is not overly adventurous to wonder how much worse must be the story not wished to be known.

Surely, no policeman has come in to his seargent to say:

Boss, we had that Zarqawi fellow but he said his name was Kareeem Abdul Jabbar, so we let him go…

If some cop did so seriously prejudice his professional future, why would an information system that clamps down harder than than John Ashcroft stifling a fart let such an embarassment be known…

I would submit, as a necessary explanation for the fact that five top “Al Q iin Iraq” guys get picked up, and the top top guy is back on the streets.

In other words Z is picked up through the operation of mistaken zeal by some underling in the course of getting the four top lieutenants

( who are the operational arm, if we are to believe the press…ie, those who would be setting up the coming bombing campaign during the election)

(usually when your average street criminal is turned loose soon after the cops pull him in for turnstile jumping, his partners- in-crime consider it best to assume that the get out of jail free card came in exchange for their addresses–in this case I think the sequence was temporally reversed)

To set the story abroad implies an intentionality that raises suspicion; so little info gets out of iraq these days that is not approved…

As for Z’s victims, I think the only american was Nick Berg. Nicholas Berg’s father already visible as an anti administration voice–Nick himself made strange noises about bringing people together , and had that totally wierd bus contact with an al-q guy that sounded like a put up story itself–how much of a coincidence that one would-be spy is “executed” (on tv yet) by an adversary who has so many question marks around him (remember “the man with two legs” problem? Perhaps it was not Z himself, but he didn’t disavow it because it was supposed to be him. Kind of like a stunt double…

Perhaps Z. was helping the admin out with a problem , at the same time he was actiing out agit prop to demomize the insurgents. I’m just sayin’…

Certainly, if Karl Rove were to script a villian, he’d look and act a lot like Z.

And Karl, as we know, plans his game well.

Put another way, it would be an enormous embarassment if by now, these turkeys STILL have been unable to come up with one miserable spy, let alone a few, perhaps one with some talent.

If they did have a spy penetrating the insurgency, would he not be successful in proportion to his ability to act the wild man? If so, why restrain from action a talented provacateur where his excesses redound to the discredit of * La Resistance

Taking together all of the close calls that Z. has eluded, and his over the top behavior, what, other than our disinclination to imagine such perfidy on the part of our “elected leaders”, argues against the proposition?

*(parenthetically,my nomination for "what shall we call the people who are shooting at our soldiers)

i think (and have for a while now) that al-zarqawi, as presented, is not a real person.

i’m not saying there is nobody named al-zarqawi, or that even nobody by that name is fighting with the iraqi restistance, but this idea of a single mastermind / supervillian type doesn’t seem right, especially given the situation on the ground there.

there have been long been rumours of this dude’s death (in the bombing of baghdad and elsewhere) yet he keeps popping up. if he he is what they say he is, he’s one wile e. coyote motherfucker for sure.

probably the most likely scenario that i can imagine is that the z. name in reality belongs to no more than a spokesperson /fuindraiser-type for al-tawid/al qaida in iraq - their public face… and in the propaganda at least, is a composite of several others (possibly including z. himself, i mean who knows?) who are actually making decisions for the resistance movement.

There was a murmur of this when Z first surfaced, I think attendant upon the Nick Berg video. Maybe in the Nation or an attached blog, there was discussion of his antecedants, (or maybe provenance…) and the inconsistencies are provacative (viz, the Berg assassin has two legs…).

More to the point is his (asdescribed) flamboyantly extravagant and fundamentally strategically unsound methods.

I’m assuming that his web site is genuinely attached to some person who by now is either him or acting for him–haven’t really gone to the web site, and I don’t plan to anytime soon…

Never attribute to planning what can more easily be attributed to incompetance.

Well, this is, of course, the great pitfall.

I confess to a teological bias in matters metaphysical, as well, so perhaps this is an isomorph.

But on the other side, consider this:

The "logic of provocation "has certainly recommended itself to all the iraqis who draw our derision when they say that this or that bomb was set by the americans so that there will be unrest and the government will be afraid to ask the soldiers to leave.

Certainly when Negroponte sits down with Sistani’s new prime minister he is going to do his best “Tom Hagen” routine about how the protection of his don is a valuable favor, and how it would be a shame if that protection were prematurely withdrawn…

If we accept for a moment the far fetched idea that some parts of the Imperial Household harbor ambitions for long term occupancy of military bases in Iraq, it is perhaps not utter tinfoillery to wonder, when looking at Zarqawi, “Cui Bono?”

that is to say, if the heart of the insurgency is the Iraqi Government in Exile (apparently Saddam was not such a bad general after all…)then the Zarqawi “add-on” is really not necessarily the desired intervention.

Meanwhile, Z takes credit for stuff the Baath Boys pull off, and they’re happy to let him have the same.

That is, whoever Z is. He is just such a schmuck that it’s easy to imagine him as a plant.

apparently I’m not the first nut to fall off the tree on this issue…
Is “Zarqawi” Another Black-Op? | 100777.com
… No one, on the record, is able to independently verify that ‘Zarqawi’ actually
exists." … identifies himself wear a black mask to shield his identity? …
100777.com/node/1052 - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Is “Zarqawi” Another Black-Op?
… the bulk of the Iraqi resistance to a character named “Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.”
… to take advantage of the prison abuse controversy to gain attention. …
100777.com/node/1052/print - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

‘Al-Qaeda’ is a Manufactured Intelligence Front
… The latest in the series is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, who has been accredited …
tried to take advantage of the prison abuse controversy to gain attention. …
prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062504falseflag.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Who is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi?
… Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is presented to World public opinion, … is not yet
confirmed and there is some doubt on the identity of those behind the attack. …
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405B.html - 71k - Cached - Similar pages

The BrownWatch: News for People of Color - To the Present - Is …
… to shield his identity? 5) The “Zarqawi” in the video wore a golden ring, …
tried to take advantage of the prison abuse controversy to gain attention. …
brownwatch.squarespace.com/to-the-present/ 2005/1/26/is-zarqawi-another-black-op.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

American terrorism imperialism Christian war fascism racism is …
… Investigation: Al-Zarqawi, An American False Flag Operative … the killers
tried to take advantage of the prison abuse controversy to gain attention.” …
www.humiliateamerica.com/modules. php?name=News&file=article&sid=366 - 62k - Cached - Similar pages

brief update. Since we last saw our plucky protagonist, he was ONCE AGAIN caught and let go. (that infernal pimpernal),,+let+go&hl=en&client=opera

Lately, some Iraqi guerillas have also noticed how Al Z rarely kills americans…

Monday, January 09, 2006

The Guerrillas who Came in from the Cold

Al-Hayat [Ar.]: Sources close to the guerrilla groups in Iraq told the pan-Arab, Saudi-backed London daily, al-Hayat that new disputes have exploded between it and the organization “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia” led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, after he carried out last Thursday’s bombings in Karbala and Ramadi. Dozens of Shiite and Sunni civilians were killed. The Iraqi guerrilla groups told al-Hayat that they would not unite with the Zarqawi group, as a result.

The Iraqi guerrilla groups say that they only attack the Occupation forces and avoid attacks on civilians, whereas Zarqawi deliberately targets the latter, having adopted a policy of launching a war against the Shiites. His group rarely tangles with the Americans, al-Hayat says, whereas the Iraqi guerrillas killed 5 Americans over the weekend and shot down a Blackhawk helicopter near Tal Afar. [This is the first claim I know of by the ex-Baathists to have shot down the helicopter.]

[Cole: Since there are too few foreign fighters under Zarqawi to account for all the attacks on civilians around the country, I conclude that a lot of them are actually carried out by the Neo-Baathists or Iraqi Salafis, who then blame them on Zarqawi. They thus get to pose as national heroes with clean hands. And Zarqawi gets to boast about being ubiquitous. And Dick Cheney gets to threaten us with al-Qaeda in Iraq (there was no al-Qaeda operating in Iraq before Cheney opened up the possibility by invading the country). So everyone is happy with this lie. But it isn’t a plausible one. All this is not to say that there aren’t tensions between Zarqawi’s people and the ex-Baath captains in the provinces.]

Iraqi guerrillas were especially upset about the bombing of potential police recruits in Ramadi, since some of the men belonged to the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. The guerrillas had given them permission to enlist under a secret agreement they had reached with the Americans via the mediation of tribal chieftains, stipulating that the guerrillas would dominate the security services, the police and army in the Sunni Arab provinces, as an element in an over-all settlement.

So let me get this straight. The war in Iraq is a fiasco that could bring down the Republican majority in congress, our troops are dying over there, the movement to bring the troops home grows and grows, Bush looks even more incompetant every day, if such a thing is possible.

But all he’d have to do is call up Zarqawi and tell him ixnay on the ombingsbay, and suddenly the war’s over and Bush is a hero?


are you MAD?

You know the penalty for using that code in public!!!