It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al-Zarqawi's successor has been in Egyptian Jail for years, and is not in Iraq, it's claimed.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

From the article:

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the purported successor of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is in an Egyptian prison and not Iraq, a lawyer has claimed.



Egyptian newspaper Al-Masri al-Yawm has quoted Mamduh Ismail as saying he met al-Muhajir, also known as Sharif Hazaa, or Abu Ayub al-Masri, in Tura prison in Cairo, where he has been held for seven years.



"Sharif Hazaa [al-Muhajir] is in Tura prison, and I met him two days ago while I was visiting some of my clients," Ismail, a lawyer known for defending Islamist groups, told the newspaper.

Link



If this is true, and I say if, this is true, would this make the US military look a bit daft? Looking for someone in Iraq who has been sitting in an Egyptian prison for 'several years'?

Or as some people believe, if Zarqawi and those that succeed him is a Psy-ops.....does this blow the Psy-ops out into the open? Is this the smoking gun?



[edit on 7-7-2006 by Regensturm]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
If no one has caught on yet...the War on Terror is much like the War on Drugs. It is a vehicle for extracting money from the Global Economy under the guise of a true threat. It is likely that there has been no real net increase in terror attacks since 9/11, or the USS Cole, or whatever you want to use as a "starting point" for the WoT. In fact, the clever classification of what had previously been deemed to be "standard" attacks has "demonstrated" an increase in reported terror attacks.

These days, Columbine, workplace shootings, and sometimes even Road Rage events would be classified as terrorist attacks. Are they? The argument is weak, but it keeps the WoT going.

This evidence, if it is true, is an indication that the parties interested in keeping the financial vein open to fund their WoT are having an increasingly difficult time self-generating a justification for the "War."

Clinton cut the crap out of the Defense budget. The WoT is a new pseudo-cold war designed to get that money back in the hands of the Military-Industrial complex. The DoD has a vested interest in keeping it going.

(Fringe conspiracy theory coming...look away if you can't handle wild-eyed speculation...)

Recently, the ATS interview with Paul "Dave" Gaubatz demonstrated that a U.S. Congressman demonstrated a significant lack of trust in the DoD. It is POSSIBLE that IF 9/11 was a setup, that those who are aware have not stepped forward because there are indications that it was DoD driven to ensure the cash flow they so desired in the wake of Clinton budget cutting. As such, revelations of the fact that 9/11 was an "inside-job" run by the DoD would be a form of admission that a silent military coup is underway in the U.S. Such information would be very damaging to the U.S. globally and could set our enemies along a course to facilitate a greater rift between the DoD and U.S. government, effectively weakening our defense posture.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaosrain
If no one has caught on yet...the War on Terror is much like the War on Drugs. It is a vehicle for extracting money from the Global Economy under the guise of a true threat. It is likely that there has been no real net increase in terror attacks since 9/11, or the USS Cole, or whatever you want to use as a "starting point" for the WoT. In fact, the clever classification of what had previously been deemed to be "standard" attacks has "demonstrated" an increase in reported terror attacks.

These days, Columbine, workplace shootings, and sometimes even Road Rage events would be classified as terrorist attacks. Are they? The argument is weak, but it keeps the WoT going.

This evidence, if it is true, is an indication that the parties interested in keeping the financial vein open to fund their WoT are having an increasingly difficult time self-generating a justification for the "War."

Clinton cut the crap out of the Defense budget. The WoT is a new pseudo-cold war designed to get that money back in the hands of the Military-Industrial complex. The DoD has a vested interest in keeping it going.


I liken Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden, and whoever is the bogeyman of the week (Kim Il Sung this week I think) to Goldstein's character in the book '1984'. A figure to use to keep the populace under control and behind the government by warning of the outside and inside influence of danger, thus keeping the people in fear and under control.



Originally posted by chaosrain
(Fringe conspiracy theory coming...look away if you can't handle wild-eyed speculation...)


Recently, the ATS interview with Paul "Dave" Gaubatz demonstrated that a U.S. Congressman demonstrated a significant lack of trust in the DoD. It is POSSIBLE that IF 9/11 was a setup, that those who are aware have not stepped forward because there are indications that it was DoD driven to ensure the cash flow they so desired in the wake of Clinton budget cutting. As such, revelations of the fact that 9/11 was an "inside-job" run by the DoD would be a form of admission that a silent military coup is underway in the U.S. Such information would be very damaging to the U.S. globally and could set our enemies along a course to facilitate a greater rift between the DoD and U.S. government, effectively weakening our defense posture.



Look up the burning of the Reichstag in the 1930's.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Regensturm]



new topics
 
1

log in

join