Author Topic: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished  (Read 1579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« on: July 11, 2007, 09:38:08 PM »
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3366118

Here's the link direct to the report.  It's actually hilarious.  Overall attacks up.  While Anbar attacks are down, the attacks in four other regions are sharply up.  Here of course you are seeing the Whack-a-Mole phenomenon in obvious effect.  As predicted. 

Now up to 70% of attacks are against U.S. troops.  More than ever before.  Indicating that the previous Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, which of course favoured U.S. goals, is on the decline, with Resistance forces finally correctly identifying the enemy.

This clearly indicates the fascists' dilemma.  They don't have the troops to violently subdue an entire nation of 23 million.  OTOH, to raise the force necessary to do the job right, they'd have to (a) blow their brains out financially and (b) reinstate the draft, thereby (c) raising a shitstorm of public opposition to the war that would make all antiwar activity to date look like a tempest in a teapot.  Push come to shove, it ain't gonna happen.  While the middle class of America may be perfectly happy to watch this sleazy charade continue to consume the lives and limbs of green card wannabes, redneck morons and other low-hanging fruit, the thought of sacrificing their own flesh and blood to this lunacy is way past the last exit from the turnpike.  Few if any legislators could survive such a decision.

This is where Bush, Cheney, et al. are caught with their nuts in the wringer.  All of their lies and charlatanism has come back to haunt them.  Everything they said they could do, and do relatively painlessly, and cheaply, they have not been able to do.  To back out now is to admit that 3500 Americans have been killed and 25,000 maimed for absolutely nothing.  To continue down the road claiming miracles around the next corner, or the next or the next as casualties rise and Treasury funds evaporate is about all they can do till the passage of time and the 2008 elections mercifully relieve them of this burden and leave it to the incoming administration to pull the plug.

In just about every meaningful way, this "Presidency" has been a total disaster for America.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2007, 10:20:50 PM »
Horrible, horrible.

I almost expect this "president" to throw the Risk game off the table and attack Iran out of frustration... and just because he can. 
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2007, 10:44:00 PM »
a senior U.S. military official told ABC New.

Does this guy or gal have a name.

For all we know they are in the Coast Guard.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2007, 11:16:10 PM »
Meanwhile the author and those quoted give us their names:

The last major mission I did while in Baqubah in early 2005 was into Buhriz. That mission had begun with our artillery firing some 155mm shots into a palm grove on the banks of the Diyala River. The enemy in Buhriz, consisting partly of the 1920s Revolution Brigades, was tough and proficient at killing our people.

A current leader in Burhiz and member of the 1920s Revolution Brigades (1920s) goes by the name Abu Ali. On Monday 9 July, I drove in the back of a Stryker and talked on the streets of Buhriz with Abu Ali. Just months ago our forces would have shot Abu Ali on sight, and he surely would have done the same to us. Today we are allies, for now.

An AP report filed recently entitled ?Al-Qaida?s No. 2 asks support of Muslims? says:

    Al-Qaida?s deputy leader sought to bolster the terror network?s main arm in Iraq in a new video released Thursday, calling on Muslims to rally behind it at a time when the group is on the defensive, faced with U.S. offensives and splits with other insurgent groups.

The AP report goes on:

    Several large Iraqi insurgent groups publicly denounced al-Qaida, saying its fighters were killing theirs and pressuring them to join the Islamic State. One group, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, has begun overtly cooperating with U.S. forces and Sunni tribal leaders to attack al-Qaida.

The words were true: I was standing there with Abu Ali, with American soldiers and 1920s people milling all around. We had certainly killed a lot of his people, and the 1920s certainly had killed many American soldiers. During severe fighting with al Qaeda in April 2007, the 1920s reached out to American soldiers, and together they have been dismantling al Qaeda here in Baqubah and other places. If we had to fight an allied force of 1920s and al Qaeda, there is no telling how many soldiers we would have lost.

Al Qaeda?s ultimate failure in much of Anbar and now in parts of Diyala relates back to one of the pillars of success?or failure?in this war: Values. People who understand how to tamp down this war realize the critical pillar that values can play into success or failure in counterinsurgency, or COIN.

In appearance, few might suspect that Abu Ali would stand up to the American military. In talking with the soft-spoken Abu Ali, his manner is similar to that of experienced American combat leaders. He is direct and clear in his speech (through an interpreter), and his intelligence is evident. An intelligent enemy who knows the dangers?who is not part of an insane death-cult promising 72 virgins and eternity with God to martyrs?and yet stands his ground against Americans over a long period, must possess great courage and annealed strength. Even among enemies, those qualities command grudging respect. I told one man in the back of the Stryker that after standing his ground with the Americans and surviving this long, al Qaeda was hopeless when Abu Ali and the 1920s shifted their martial attentions.

While we were driving in the belly of the Stryker into Buhriz, I asked Abu Ali, ?What did you do to al Qaeda??

Abu Ali said that on 1 April 2007, he and his people attacked al Qaeda in Buhriz for their crimes against Islam. He also said something that many Muslims have said to me: al Qaeda are not Muslims. (Both Sunni and Shia have said nearly the exact same words, at times on video.) Abu Ali said they fought hard against al Qaeda, and on 10 April, they asked the Americans to join the attack. It worked.

The Stryker stopped in Buhriz. The ramp dropped and Abu Ali, LT David Wallach and LTC Fred Johnson dismounted, along with Talal, the courageous AP stringer. I asked Abu Ali if I could videotape him for Americans to see. On camera, he demonstrated the media savvy of a NASCAR driver, and managed to effect the same dynamic mix of confidence and humility. Through moral corruption, al Qaeda lost support then alienated a persuasive, courageous communicator, who can directly inhibit their ability to survive another day.

Before the tape was running, I asked Abu Ali why he and the 1920s turned against al Qaeda in Buhriz. Speaking through LT David Wallach, a native Arabic speaker, Abu Ali said that ?al Qaeda is an abomination of Islam: cutting off heads, stealing people?s money, kidnapping . . . every type of torture they have done.?

The recent stories of baked children came to mind. I asked if Abu Ali had heard about children being baked. Ali said no, he had not heard such a story, but he would not be surprised if it were true because al Qaeda had done so many crimes, such as cutting off a man?s head, putting it up on a stick and parading it around town.

Ali said people had been afraid in their own homes because of al Qaeda. I asked if he had fought Americans and Ali laughed and said through Wallach, ?What kind of question is that?? I chuckled. Unfortunately, we had to go to other meetings, so the time for taping was short. In closing, I asked Abu Ali if there was something he would like to say to Americans. The markets that had been closed under al Qaeda were bustling around us.

Ali thought for a moment as some local people tried to interrupt him with greetings, and he said, ?I ask one thing,? and now I paraphrase Ali?s words: ?After the Iraqi Army and Police take hold and the security forces are ready, we want a schedule for the leaving of the American forces.?

?I will tell the Americans this,? I said. Ali seemed satisfied as he went off with another American unit. We loaded back into the Stryker and headed to other interesting meetings on other interesting matters, all dealing with the grinding gears of winning or losing this war, and with catching and killing al Qaeda.

Watch the interview here:

The focus on al Qaeda makes sense here, where local officials have gone on record acknowledging that most of the perhaps one thousand al Qaeda fighters in Baqubah were young men and boys who called the city home. This may clash with the perception in US and other media that only a small percentage of the enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda, which in turn leads to false conclusions that the massive offensive campaign underway across Iraq is a lot of shock and awe aimed at a straw enemy. But as more Sunni tribal leaders renounce former ties with al Qaeda, it?s becoming clearer just how heavily AQ relied on local talent, and how disruptive they have been here in fomenting the civil war.

Al Qaeda?s recruiting efforts in Baqubah were not much different than what they used in Mosul as 2004 changed into 2005 and Iraq?s first elections loomed. (I was in Baqubah at that time.) I wrote about how thugs and gangs and fugitive fundamentalists on the run from Fallujah flooded into Mosul and murdered people by the hundreds. Al Qaeda had excellent publicity and media teams and a sales pitch that worked effectively for a long time. But the reason for Zawahiri?s recent desperate recruiting drive is the fact that AQ values in action have turned local people against them. We are not always fighting AQ on the battlefield because they can be so difficult to find, but month by month, year by year, we can destroy them on the moral battlefield; they are savages and most people can see it.

Over here, the fact of al Qaeda murdering children is just that: it?s a fact. How they chose to commit the murders is a variable that changes from incident to incident. I?ve written often about how Iraqis, as a rule, love and greatly value their children. This makes the children especially vulnerable as targets for terrorists. That is a brutal fact.

Al Qaeda drinks and uses drugs here. This is not propaganda. This is not even news, it?s a fact that I wrote about back in 2005. Zarqawi, the now-dead former leader of AQI, was best known for causing the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqis, and raping women all over the land and over in Jordan. Whether Zarqawi raped women from village to village, or one woman from each village, I do not know. But Zarqawi cultivated his image like a pro. Rape and murder were his trademarks.

The same Zawahiri who issued al Qaeda?s latest call for recruits sent a letter to Zarqawi back in 2005, warning him to stop cutting off people?s heads and broadcasting it. Zawahiri?s version of a ?Values Message? cautioned Zarqawi that these grostesqueries were losing al Qaeda the support of Muslims. He was right. Al Qaeda is no longer welcome in Baqubah.

lots of embedded links and videos here.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2007, 11:22:49 PM »
Then there is this:

 A Tale of Two Letters

While the Democrats steadfastly maintain an eerie code of silence on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq (more on that at the end of my post), and while the New York Times tries to help them out by seeking novel ways to deliberately downplay the al Qaeda threat in Iraq (see my post about that here), everyone else should try to base their understanding of what is happening in Iraq on factual evidence. Of the many lines of evidence that could be considered, two intercepted letters between al Qaeda's leaders offer some of the most relevant information.

The first letter -- one that I have referred to many times before -- was written by Zarqawi in 2003. It was intercepted in 2004, and it lays out his diabolical, but ingenious, plan to incite civil war in Iraq by maliciously attacking innocent Shiites and the mosques in which they worship:

    The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance...Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions.


Pure (evil) genius. The world has seen many civil wars in the past, but I'm not sure we have ever seen one deliberately engineered like this one. To even conceive of this idea, much less to turn the plan into reality, requires a very special (albeit severely warped) mind. Al Qaeda put this plan into action by relentlessly bombing innocent Shiites (which they continue to do, including their major terrorist attack last weekend), and they finally brought the Shiite militias into the fight when they bombed the Golden Mosque in February of 2006. Only after this event unleashed a dramatically higher level of sectarian violence did I go back and study what had happened, and only then did I awaken to al Qaeda's brilliant plan for Iraq. As it happens, al Qaeda had been attacking Shiites and their mosques for some time, but I was not aware of it because the attacks had not yet become as sensational as they later would. All that changed in February of 2006.

The second letter was written by al Qaeda's current deputy chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and I was reminded of it when John McCain mentioned it yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor that I happened to catch on C-SPAN. Zawahiri's letter to Zarqawi was intercepted in 2005, and it is interesting for several reasons. First, Zawahiri gently expresses some reservations about Zarqawi's ingenious plan to attack Shiites in Iraq, though he acknowledges that he does not have all of the details (and, so, does not forbid Zarqawi to continue with his plan). Here is what he says:

    ...many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.
    ...
    In summation, with regard to the talk about the issue of the Shia, I would like to repeat that I see that matter from afar without being aware of all the details, I would like my words to be deserving of your attention and consideration, and God is the guarantor of success for every good thing.


Indeed, these attacks have not been acceptable to the Muslim population, which is why (I presume) al Qaeda's reputation has been damaged throughout the Muslim world. On the other hand, those attacks have served to greatly demoralize Americans and their representatives in Washington. Remember: al Qaeda is not participating in Iraq's civil war; instead, they are provoking it, in part because it demoralizes Americans (and, predictably, makes them want to leave).

The bombing of the Golden Mosque occurred after the deputy chief's letter was written, and I suspect that he now appreciates the genius of Zarqawi's vision. In fact, he probably now understands how Zarqawi's strategy, which continues to this very day, will be essential in achieving the specific goals that Zawahiri set forth in his own letter:

    So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

    The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.


In other words, the Democratic plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq corresponds precisely to Zawahiri's first objective. There is no getting around this. You might want to withdraw our troops anyway, but you should not deny that you favor implementing the first stage of al Qaeda's plan for Iraq. I'll never understand how anyone could favor doing that, but perhaps someone will explain it to me.

In another part of the letter, Zawahiri explains his thinking:

    What drives me to broach these matters while we are in the din of war and the challenges of killing and combat? My answer is, firstly: Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us...


As you can see, what al Qaeda is doing today is informed by what America did in Vietnam (something that is also clear in comments made by Osama bin Laden). It seems reasonable to suppose that the way in which al Qaeda will behave in the future will be similarly informed by what we do now in Iraq. The troop withdrawal plan -- that is, the plan to run and leave behind America's agents in Iraq -- is exactly what al Qaeda expects us to do.

And what does Zawahiri envision after our troops are gone? This:

    The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before unIslamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
    ...
    The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

    The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.


That's the vision. The debate in America is all about whether or not we should concede the first stage to al Qaeda. I say no. By contrast, Nancy Pelosi eerily ignores this issue altogether:

    ?Six months after the President escalated the war in Iraq, American troops have plunged even deeper into that country?s civil war, with no end in sight or a clear exit strategy. The President wants more of the same and he refuses to acknowledge the facts on the ground ? violence remains high and political reconciliation is non-existent."


I encourage you to visit her web page and read the whole thing. You won't find a single reference to al Qaeda, and that's just creepy. It's as if al Qaeda in Iraq is so utterly inconsequential that it need not even be mentioned --- not even in passing -- when debating what to do about Iraq or how to conceptualize what will happen when we leave. I think it's because she is aware that most Americans are oblivious to the threat, and she does not want to contribute to their awakening (for fear of helping Bush). And the New York Times is gearing up to help her out.

Wake up, America. No one is "hyping" the threat posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, but many are in a state of denial about it (including the entire Democratic leadership). And because of the media we have today, they can easily get away with it.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/tale-of-two-letters.html


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2007, 12:16:54 AM »
<<a senior U.S. military official told ABC New.

<<Does this guy or gal have a name.

<<For all we know they are in the Coast Guard.>>

Wouldn't matter if he was a municipal sewer worker in Des Moines.  He reported what the REPORT said, not what he eye-witnessed in Iraq.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2007, 12:40:20 AM »
Actually it does matter.

The report hasn't been released yet, so there is no way to verify this unnamed gents remarks about its contents and its context.

 
.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2007, 12:44:28 AM »
As I've said on numerous occasions, Iraq is a complex society.  The Americans came in with a ready-made puppet government and a ready-made puppet leader, the INC and its leader Chalabi.  There was a Sunni - Shi'ite split and the U.S. would go with the majority Shi'ites but put a secular guy at the controls so as not to replicate the Iranian theocracy.  Well, they fucked up.  The Shi'ites were NOT going to march under some secularist crook's banner.  Chalabi, apparently, had overstated his influence and those schmucks had bought into it lock, stock and barrel.

Lo and behold, from BT's latest posts, it appears that the Americans are waking up to a secular-fundamentalist split in the Sunni as well.  Only under the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party of Saddam Hussein, the secularist Sunni were pretty much established in Iraq.  The fundamentalist Sunni fighters seem to be coming in from outside the country.  The U.S. exploits the split, arms the secular Sunni against the fanatics.  But the fanatics aren't really the problem.  They never had much of a power base in the country and the fact that they had to use brutality against their natural Sunni allies only proves their lack of a strong popular base anyway.  What the U.S. is arming is the Sunni nucleus of the former ruling class of Iraq.  Saddam's base, if they're Tikritis, Saddam's natural supporters if they're not.

Is all this new?  The U.S. formerly supported the same groups in the Saddam Hussein era.  Backed them against the Iranians and backed them against both Kurds and Shi'a.  But those Sunni have minds of their own.  Sure they'll take U.S. support when it's available.  They'd be crazy not to.  They don't want to be ruled by a bunch of crazy fanatics.  They are reasonable, modern people.   They do not wish to share their oil profits with America any more than Saddam did and they'll turn just like Saddam when the time is right.  Even if the U.S. policy cuts the legs off al Qaeda - - and I don't see that happening anytime soon - - the U.S. would still have two major hurdles to overcome - - first their side would have to beat the more numerous Shi'a, now supported by Iran; and secondly, once they are firmly if ever in the saddle, the U.S. will be forced to deal with essentially the same group that drove out the British, killed the puppets the British left behind, and took over control of their own country.  Why on earth would the Americans expect that THIS generation of Sunni secularists, after the massacres at Falluja and elsewhere and the torture of thousands of Sunni prisoners, and the rape and murder of Sunni women and children, will be any more accommodating than previous generations?

And in any event, I think the above questions are largely academic, simply because al Qaeda in Iraq is not a spent force.  They can re-infiltrate and they can learn from past mistakes, just as the Viet Cong could.  As long as there are Americans to fight and kill in Iraq, jihadis will infiltrate and gladly sacrifice their own lives for a shot at martyrdom and at killing the infidel enemies of their religion.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2007, 12:46:46 AM »
Of course the report hasn't been released yet, otherwise nobody would need to rely on this guy's version of what's in it.  But what difference does it make who the guy is if he's only reporting on what's in the report?  Are you claiming that Coast Guard officers aren't as good at reading and remembering written reports as people who've actually been to Iraq?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2007, 01:01:02 AM »
Perhaps the leaker wished to remain unnamed because the report is still classified. Of perhaps the reporter isn't quoting anyone and was given a copy of the report themselves.

So what we have is unnamed people quoting unverifiable and incomplete reports and you jump all over it lik ethe gospel truth.

And then you turn around and call Yon a paid shill for having the temerity to report what he sees.

Simply amazing. Whatever happened to double and triple sourcing the news?

Did they have to cut back the fact checkers to pay for the corrections staff?



Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2007, 01:14:51 AM »
<<So what we have is unnamed people quoting unverifiable and incomplete reports and you jump all over it lik ethe gospel truth.>>

Well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?  Sounded to me like a man who saw the report and the reporter trusted him enough to run with the story.  Mistakes happen in such circumstances, but the mistakes are the exception, most of the time the reporter and his source got it right the first time.  I'm going with the odds.

<<And then you turn around and call Yon a paid shill for having the temerity to report what he sees.>>

Yeah, like he saw the 11-year-olds baked and served up to their parents.  How'd they taste? 

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2007, 01:26:03 AM »
Quote
Yeah, like he saw the 11-year-olds baked and served up to their parents.  How'd they taste?

He never made that claim. And the person who did make that claim did not do it anonymously.

See the difference?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2007, 01:26:46 AM »
BTW - - from the AP story

<<A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

<<The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.>>

Gee. not a Coast Guardsman after all. And apparently corroborated by others.  Not as shabby a journalistic effort as you first claimed, it seems.  Too bad you Michael Yon still looks like a whore and a pro-military hack.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2007, 01:29:34 AM »
<<He never made that claim.>>

Of course not.  Because it never happened.  My reference was related to your claim that he "reports what he sees."  That is obvious bullshit.  He retells rumors and tall tales that he hears.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Al Qaeda's Strength Undiminished
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2007, 01:41:40 AM »
Quote
Gee. not a Coast Guardsman after all. And apparently corroborated by others.  Not as shabby a journalistic effort as you first claimed, it seems.  Too bad you Michael Yon still looks like a whore and a pro-military hack.

Your story made no mention of counterterrrorism experts as sources. It did mention a senior military official.

My charge stands.

Shoddy reporting.

And since Yon gave the name of the person who spoke of the 11 year old boy luncheon entries, feel free to follow up with requests for further information.

Meanwhile i doubt seniormilitaryofficial@anomynous.com would be delivered.