Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia
March 10, 2008, 6:40 am
The story that follows is about an innocent family -- husband, wife, and daughter -- who were walking in a market in Baghdad when a suicide bomber blue up. The husband was killed, the wife was critically injured, and the daughter is missing. The New York Times has no idea why anyone would do such a thing.
They could start by reading the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri:
whoever claims to be a "democratic-Muslim" . . . . is an apostate infidel.
Now under Sharia, which is the legal code favored by al-Zawahiri, the punishment for apostasy is death. Since most of the Shiite citizens of Baghdad support the US effort to set up a democratic government in Iraq, they are apostates, and so, according to al-Zawahiri, killing them is acceptable.
And then there are the words of Mousub al-Zarqawi. In his letter to al-Zawahiri, which was captured by the Americans, he makes clear his contempt for the Shiites like this:
3 [sic]. The Shi`a
[They are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity . . . . Shi`ism is a religion that has nothing in common with Islam . . .
Having made it clear that in his eyes, Shiites are utterly contemptible infidels, and killing them is acceptable, Zarqawi goes on to explain why he believes it is desirable:
4. The Shi`a
These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis . . .
In case the point is not sufficiently clear, Zarqawi repeats it:
I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want . . .
Another way the New York Times could find out would be to read the words of Osama bin Laden in this article about al Qaeda's attempts to provoke a civil war in Iraq:
Declaring Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government as an "apostate government", Osama bin Laden said he was "pleased" with al-Zarqawi's "gallant operations" against the Americans and interim Iraqi Prime Minister.
Remember that in bin Laden's belief system, the punishment for apostasy is death.
There really is no mystery why al Qaeda is murdering Iraqi Shiites with bomb attacks targetting civillians. But the New York Times doesn't see the picture at all.
Death and More Death. Why?
The story that follows is about an innocent family -- husband, wife, and daughter -- who were walking in a market in Baghdad when a suicide bomber blue up. The husband was killed, the wife was critically injured, and the daughter is missing. The New York Times has no idea why anyone would do such a thing.
They could start by reading the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri:
whoever claims to be a "democratic-Muslim" . . . . is an apostate infidel.
Now under Sharia, which is the legal code favored by al-Zawahiri, the punishment for apostasy is death. Since most of the Shiite citizens of Baghdad support the US effort to set up a democratic government in Iraq, they are apostates, and so, according to al-Zawahiri, killing them is acceptable.
And then there are the words of Mousub al-Zarqawi. In his letter to al-Zawahiri, which was captured by the Americans, he makes clear his contempt for the Shiites like this:
3 [sic]. The Shi`a
[They are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity . . . . Shi`ism is a religion that has nothing in common with Islam . . .
Having made it clear that in his eyes, Shiites are utterly contemptible infidels, and killing them is acceptable, Zarqawi goes on to explain why he believes it is desirable:
4. The Shi`a
These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis . . .
In case the point is not sufficiently clear, Zarqawi repeats it:
I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want . . .
Another way the New York Times could find out would be to read the words of Osama bin Laden in this article about al Qaeda's attempts to provoke a civil war in Iraq:
Declaring Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government as an "apostate government", Osama bin Laden said he was "pleased" with al-Zarqawi's "gallant operations" against the Americans and interim Iraqi Prime Minister.
Remember that in bin Laden's belief system, the punishment for apostasy is death.
There really is no mystery why al Qaeda is murdering Iraqi Shiites with bomb attacks targetting civillians. But the New York Times doesn't see the picture at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment