Syrian jihadi cell leader - Syria sending fighters.

[NaplesX]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060702026_4.html

Preface: I understand that this guy's account is somewhat unverified, so it is not a "smoking gun". It is however another transparency layer stacked on others that is starting to paint a recognizable picture. We will see more.

A great piece by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad that is riddled with great info:

"The stream of fighters -- most of them Syrians, but lately many of them Saudis, favored for the cash they bring -- has sustained and replenished the hardest core of the Iraq insurgency, and supplied many of its suicide bombers. "

"Syria's role in sustaining and organizing the insurgency has shifted over time. In the first days of the war, fighters swarmed into Iraq aboard buses that Syrian border guards waved through open gates, witnesses recalled. But late in 2004, after intense pressure on Damascus from the Bush administration, Syrian domestic intelligence services swept up scores of insurgent facilitators. Many, including Abu Ibrahim, were quietly released a few days later."

Syrian support is described:

" Jihad was being allowed into the open. Abu Ibrahim said Syrian security officials and presidential advisers attended festivals, one of which was called "The People of Sham Will Now Defeat the Jews and Kill Them All." Money poured in from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries."

"They were allowed to enforce their strict vision of sharia , or Islamic law, entering houses in the middle of the night to confront people accused of bad behavior."

"Abu Ibrahim said their authority rivaled that of the Amn Dawla, or state security. "Everyone knew us," he said. "We all had big beards. We became thugs."

"We asked the sheik why we weren't being arrested," said Abu Ibrahim. "He would tell us it was because we weren't saying anything against the government, that we were focusing on the common enemy, America and Israel, that beards and epaulets were in one trench together."

During the war:

"Saddam Hussein's government embraced the volunteers, handing them weapons and calling them Arab Saddam Fedayeen. But ordinary Iraqis were often less welcoming, pleading with them to go home; some Syrians were shot or handed over to the invading Americans."

"Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were fighters."

I remember the outcry over that one, the US even apologized:

"http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.syria.bus/"

"In the summer of 2004, Abu Ibrahim got to go to Iraq. He crossed the dunes with 50 other volunteers, dodging U.S. patrols on the Iraqi side.

In Iraqi society he moved without drawing attention. He would not discuss much of what transpired during the subsequent months. But when he returned to Syria after the massive U.S. offensive in Fallujah, only three people were alive from the original 50, he said. One was a suicide bomber."

So we know at least 50 of those fighting in Fallujah were from Syria, according to Ibrahim.

[i]Originally posted by tonton
And how Zarqawi is behind ALL of the insurgent attacks.

Maybe not all but according to Ibrahim:

"Young men are fighting with zeal and passion," Abu Ibrahim said. "There are Saudi officers, Syrians, Iraqis. But not those who fought for Saddam. The man who is leading it for the most part is Zarqawi."

"Abu Ibrahim credited Zarqawi with revitalizing the insurgency, especially since October, when he pledged fealty to Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader. Abu Ibrahim said that union helped cement an alliance among several resistance groups in Iraq that formed a joint treasury."

In summing up he says:

""The Syrians are in an awkward position, on one side they want to do whatever the Americans want them to. And on the other side they want to fight the Americans."

I am sure this new info is the reason the US and Iraqi military is sweeping through the towns close to the border.

I wish the Admin would address this more aggressively.

[THT]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I wish the Admin would address this more aggressively.

The administration could solve the problem by aggressively leaving Iraq.

I only have unspeakable words for the admin and the folly that is their foreign policy.

[segovius]

This one is a smoking gun of sorts - except it's smoking out of the rear end of someone a bit nearer washington than Damascus.

Let's clear it up once and for all. First, let's clarify the position:

The claim is that Syrian jihadis are fighting in Iraqi at the Syrian government's behest. Note, NOT that Syrians are crossing into Iraq to fight (which must be true to some degree) but that they are being sent there by the Syrian government.

This is important because it lays the foundation for more death and destruction, this time visited upon Syria. It is the WMD of the next domino as it were.

Anyway, first we will expose the claim as the falsehood it undoubtedly is and then deal with the laughable efforts of this latest propaganda piece. I as going to say Goebells-esque, but it's hardly that refined.

So. To Syria. The BBC posted an article a few days ago entitled Syria cracks down on Islamists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4557543.stm). It is interesting as it clearly shows that the traditional Syrian attitude to Islamic movements is alive and well.

In 1982, Bashir's father Hafez Asad murdered thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood in the notorious Hama massacre. The MB was founded by Sayid Qotb upon whose teachings Zawahiri (Osamas's right-hand man) based the philosophy of Al-Qaeda (or rather his own terror group, which is erroneoulsy known as al-Qaeda).

Basically, the theory was to overthrow secular or westernised states in the Arab world (hence the trouble with Egypt and Damascus) by means of violent opposition. Over time this grew into the belief that it was legitimate to kill Muslims who did not join the struggle but we get ahead of ourselves - Syria was running scared of the extremists and after killing thousands at Hama banned the organisation, a ban which continues to this day. They are in short, avowed deadly enemies. The MB being radical extremists will never forgive the massacre and have Damascus (ie the Asad regime) marked down for operations whenever possible - which is almost never because they are arrested, detained and tortured at every opportunity.

From the article:

In just over 10 days, a Kurdish cleric has been reported missing, a political activist speaking in the name of the Muslim Brotherhood has been detained and two dissidents with suspected ties to the Islamic movement have been arrested upon their return from exile.

In April, another returning dissident was also detained for a month. He died from heart failure soon after his release.....all those suspected of having ties with the Muslim Brotherhood were detained upon their return to Syria, and not all the Kurds have been released.

There is certainly no love lost between the secular Baath party and the Islamists.

In 1982, a Muslim Brotherhood rebellion in the northern town of Hama was violently crushed and thousands were killed.

More than 20 years later, the Syrian leadership appears eager to show it will not allow any challenge from its long-time rival, the Islamists.

So that is the situation in brief. Its import is obvious to any rational thinker and those who unfortunately do not fit that category will not benefit from further analysis.

The WP article:

The first thing one notices is that in true Naples fashion, the cited article is not only misunderstood completely but actually defeats his own argument:

In January, shortly after Abu Ibrahim returned to Syria, he was summoned to Amn Dawla headquarters along with scores of fellow jihadi cell leaders. The security agents said the smuggling of fighters had to stop. The jihadis' passports were taken. Some were jailed for a few days. Abu Ibrahim's jailers shaved his beard.

Also in January, Richard L. Armitage, then the U.S. deputy secretary of state, visited Damascus. After long lambasting Syria for supporting the insurgency, Armitage brought praise. "We have seen a lot of improvement regarding foreign fighters who were using Syria to enter Iraq," he said. "And this is a good thing."

And again

Abu Ibrahim said their authority rivaled that of the Amn Dawla, or state security. "Everyone knew us," he said. "We all had big beards. We became thugs."

In a dictatorship infamous for its intolerance of political Islam, such freedom made some of the cleric's lieutenants suspicious.

The piece is rational in part but seems to degenerate while invoking (as must always happen) the ubiquitous Zarqawi. Zarqawi is widely rumoured to be dead - and this is quite likely- but the hallmark of any propaganda or govt approved piece is that this angle is never discussed.

He is (in such a usage) an inalienable fact. Never mind he has a wooden leg. and can escape from Fallujah, from Ramadi, can appear in Iran (who would kill him in a second if he wasn't dead already) despite being mortally wounded and escaping Iraq and now has established his Syrian credentials.

Zarqawi is fulfilling the Osama role for some reason and has been for sometime. Why he is pushed now rather than OBL we may never know but the vast likelihood (along with the evidence) is that they are both pushing up the daisies and all the rest is the usual crock of horse manure.

Such articles and the Syrian connection as a whole serve one purpose and one purpose only - drip, drip, drip into the woolly carapace of the hapless sheep. They are to Syria as WMD was to iraq and are pushed (and defended) equally as vehemently, with the same flavour by exactly the same fanboys.

The only purpose is to legitimize more death and rationalise more lies.

[NaplesX]

I tried very hard to ignore your post, because of it's lack of thought or reason but...

Originally posted by THT
The administration could solve the problem by aggressively leaving Iraq. One word... Cambodia. Sunni Muslims from Iraq and Syria and powers from Iran would cause a civil war dwarfing he current mayhem that exists. Is that what you really want?

I can appreciate that you may disagree with war. or the reasons for embarking on the path, but pulling out would do absolutely nothing positive for Iraq.

Originally posted by THT
I only have unspeakable words for the admin and the folly that is their foreign policy. That's fine. Try to keep them in long enough to address this thread, instead of going off another Anti-Bush cliff, cool?

[THT]

Originally posted by NaplesX
One word... Cambodia. Sunni Muslims from Iraq and Syria and powers from Iran would cause a civil war dwarfing he current mayhem that exists. Is that what you really want?

If that happens, then we can do something about it at the time if the people there want our help. That's only if they want our help. If they don't want our help, then yes, we should let it happen.

I can appreciate that you may disagree with war. or the reasons for embarking on the path, but pulling out would do absolutely nothing positive for Iraq.

Pulling out of Iraq removes the sole reason for insurgency and allows Iraq to solve their problems on their own terms.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
This one is a smoking gun of sorts - except it's smoking out of the rear end of someone a bit nearer washington than Damascus.

Let's clear it up once and for all. First, let's clarify the position:

The claim is that Syrian jihadis are fighting in Iraqi at the Syrian government's behest. Note, NOT that Syrians are crossing into Iraq to fight (which must be true to some degree) but that they are being sent there by the Syrian government.

This is important because it lays the foundation for more death and destruction, this time visited upon Syria. It is the WMD of the next domino as it were.

Anyway, first we will expose the claim as the falsehood it undoubtedly is and then deal with the laughable efforts of this latest propaganda piece. I as going to say Goebells-esque, but it's hardly that refined.

So. To Syria. The BBC posted an article a few days ago entitled Syria cracks down on Islamists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4557543.stm). It is interesting as it clearly shows that the traditional Syrian attitude to Islamic movements is alive and well.

In 1982, Bashir's father Hafez Asad murdered thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood in the notorious Hama massacre. The MB was founded by Sayid Qotb upon whose teachings Zawahiri (Osamas's right-hand man) based the philosophy of Al-Qaeda (or rather his own terror group, which is erroneoulsy known as al-Qaeda).

Basically, the theory was to overthrow secular or westernised states in the Arab world (hence the trouble with Egypt and Damascus) by means of violent opposition. Over time this grew into the belief that it was legitimate to kill Muslims who did not join the struggle but we get ahead of ourselves - Syria was running scared of the extremists and after killing thousands at Hama banned the organisation, a ban which continues to this day. They are in short, avowed deadly enemies. The MB being radical extremists will never forgive the massacre and have Damascus (ie the Asad regime) marked down for operations whenever possible - which is almost never because they are arrested, detained and tortured at every opportunity.

From the article:



So that is the situation in brief. Its import is obvious to any rational thinker and those who unfortunately do not fit that category will not benefit from further analysis.

The WP article:

The first thing one notices is that in true Naples fashion, the cited article is not only misunderstood completely but actually defeats his own argument:



And again



The piece is rational in part but seems to degenerate while invoking (as must always happen) the ubiquitous Zarqawi. Zarqawi is widely rumoured to be dead - and this is quite likely- but the hallmark of any propaganda or govt approved piece is that this angle is never discussed.

He is (in such a usage) an inalienable fact. Never mind he has a wooden leg. and can escape from Fallujah, from Ramadi, can appear in Iran (who would kill him in a second if he wasn't dead already) despite being mortally wounded and escaping Iraq and now has established his Syrian credentials.

Zarqawi is fulfilling the Osama role for some reason and has been for sometime. Why he is pushed now rather than OBL we may never know but the vast likelihood (along with the evidence) is that they are both pushing up the daisies and all the rest is the usual crock of horse manure.

Such articles and the Syrian connection as a whole serve one purpose and one purpose only - drip, drip, drip into the woolly carapace of the hapless sheep. They are to Syria as WMD was to iraq and are pushed (and defended) equally as vehemently, with the same flavour by exactly the same fanboys.

The only purpose is to legitimize more death and rationalise more lies. What are you talking about?

The Syrian government (or factions within it) know what is happening. There is no way they can't. The fact that Syrian military at one time waving through busloads of jihadists/freedom fighters/whatever you wish to call them, would lend to support that thesis.

This article shows that Syria has attempted to curb the flow of these people, this was acknowledged repeatedly, so I am unsure why you protest so much. This article actually put the Syrian government in a slightly different light, for me.

Your whole argument about Zarqawi and OBL and the Syrian secular government is logical, for the most part. However, where you and I part ways is where you totally dismiss the possibility of an alliance between them. History is full of just those kinds of alliances.

For the sake of civil debate. I will bend a little and go as far as to say, there is a possibility (slim IMO) that, as you claim, this is pure propaganda from GWB propaganda machine. In such a case you will be proven right.

So, let's just say you're right. Let me explain why I don't think this was a propaganda piece, cool?

1. The overall tone of the article was informative rather than "rah rah" or "told ya so", at least in my reading of it.

2. The main person of focus - Abu Ibrahim - did not seem to US friendly to me. He seemed more anti-secular-Syrian-government to me. Maybe that's what you meant, but I see the two as different.

3. The whole article was a great piece of journalism. Hardly the typical "rah rah" type stuff you would expect.

4. This report implicates Saudi Arabia to an extent also.

You accepted the fact that everyone mentioned in the story is in fact real. I am not sure why you focus on Zarqawi unless it is pivotal to some other agenda. But hey, if that is so important to you, I will concede that the article does seem accepts Zarqawi as being alive, despite the rumors you have heard. I will just point out that so does this jihadist. It would seem the US government did such a wiz-bang job of fooling the world into believing that Zaeqawi is alive and real, even the enemy thinks he is.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
What are you talking about?

The Syrian government (or factions within it) know what is happening. There is no way they can't. The fact that Syrian military at one time waving through busloads of jihadists/freedom fighters/whatever you wish to call them, would lend to support that thesis.

The Syrian military is a conscription military - avoidance is punished by detention. And Syrian prisons are not particularly nice I can assure you.

Almost everyone in the military hates it and is there because they have no choice. Sure, some could wave through jihadis some may actually be jihadis.

You were/are claiming involvement at the government level. This is not evidence of this.

Your whole argument about Zarqawi and OBL and the Syrian secular government is logical, for the most part. However, where you and I part ways is where you totally dismiss the possibility of an alliance between them. History is full of just those kinds of alliances.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Certainly it is the case with people of no particular strong ideological basis.

I put it to you that alliances are never made when there are personal grudges involved.

If you really believe this then you must believe that the US is capable of making alliances with (say) the people behind 911. Of course they would keep this from the public if they did.

If you think that this would be a case where no such alliance could be made then there are many such instances in the Islamic world. The Palestinians and Israel for example.

Besides, a belief in Islam precludes betraying Islam. Unless you are arguing that the Islamists are not really Islamists (a fruitful line of enquiry btw....).

You accepted the fact that everyone mentioned in the story is in fact real. I am not sure why you focus on Zarqawi unless it is pivotal to some other agenda. But hey, if that is so important to you, I will concede that the article does seem accepts Zarqawi as being alive, despite the rumors you have heard. I will just point out that so does this jihadist. It would seem the US government did such a wiz-bang job of fooling the world into believing that Zaeqawi is alive and real, even the enemy thinks he is.

You are assuming that this 'jihadist' is not an invention also. I would not be confident in any such assumption.

[segovius]

Latest updates: Syria votes to downscale state of emergency (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4079146.stm).

Looks like there's still tough news for the Islamists though:

The four-day congress also decided to allow new political parties to be formed, but parties based on religion or ethnicity are expected to be banned.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
The Syrian military is a conscription military - avoidance is punished by detention. And Syrian prisons are not particularly nice I can assure you.

Almost everyone in the military hates it and is there because they have no choice. Sure, some could wave through jihadis some may actually be jihadis.

You were/are claiming involvement at the government level. This is not evidence of this. So if they are hard on no-shows, you don't think they would be just as hard or harder on soldiers that make independent and foolish decisions like letting jihadists cross the border, since you claim they are so against jihadists?



Originally posted by segovius
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Certainly it is the case with people of no particular strong ideological basis.

I put it to you that alliances are never made when there are personal grudges involved. I would suggest the grudge with the US is/was greater that any grudge with fellow muslims.

Originally posted by segovius
If you really believe this then you must believe that the US is capable of making alliances with (say) the people behind 911. Of course they would keep this from the public if they did. That's a much bigger stretch.

Originally posted by segovius
Besides, a belief in Islam precludes betraying Islam. Unless you are arguing that the Islamists are not really Islamists (a fruitful line of enquiry btw....). Well now you're on to something. I never believed these terrorists proscribed to islamic law. Nut they use the religion as cover and to stir up emotion in the fools that fall for that kind of stuff.

Originally posted by segovius
You are assuming that this 'jihadist' is not an invention also. I would not be confident in any such assumption. I am going to say I doubt it. But, in the sense of fairness and honesty, I will concede there is a chance you are right, however so slight I might feel it is.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So if they are hard on no-shows, you don't think they would be just as hard or harder on soldiers that make independent and foolish decisions like letting jihadists cross the border, since you claim they are so against jihadists?

Maybe they are. We don't know what happened to that soldier who waved through the fighters.

I can tell you that I have personal experience of friends who have been tortured in Syria and know several people whose family members have been 'disappeared', in some cases for up to 20 years.

All on suspicion of 'Islamist' tendencies.

I would suggest the grudge with the US is/was greater that any grudge with fellow muslims.

You'd be very wrong if you did.

That's a much bigger stretch.

I don''t believe it either necessarily. It was an example.

Well now you're on to something. I never believed these terrorists proscribed to islamic law. Nut they use the religion as cover and to stir up emotion in the fools that fall for that kind of stuff.

Well, we seem to be reaching some form of agreement.

I am going to say I doubt it. But, in the sense of fairness and honesty, I will concede there is a chance you are right, however so slight I might feel it is.

Well, who knows ? Not me or you. One thing is for sure though - the US does routinely operate in propaganda that purports to come from Arabs. It would be stupid for them not to, it sounds far more credible than coming from themselves.

[segovius]

Yet more evidence to ignore.... (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm)

Not the first article (which is fascinating enough and thread-worthy in its own right) but the second - as usual, pay attention to the bold bits:

Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are.

In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence."

Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'"

Taluto's comments are sure to raise hackles at the Pentagon, which insist that all insurgents are either Baathists or al-Qaida.

Taluto observed that "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the U.S. were Iraqis.

[segovius]

We haven't heard from old Napes for a while so perhaps he'd like to answer some questions to get back in the swing of the Syria thing.

How about we start of with two easy ones:

1) How is it that if Syria is funding Jihadis they are torturing those same Jihadis ?

2) Why, if the aim of Syria is to oppose the US, are Syria torturing these jihadis for the US , on US orders and as a help to the US in its bogus 'WOT' ?

Helpful source material (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm)

Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who in 2002 was detained in transit at New York's JFK airport, and accused of being an al-Qaeda member.

After 12 days in US custody, he was bundled in chains aboard a plane to Jordan and then taken by road to the Syrian capital, Damascus. There, Mr Arar claims, he was tortured by Syrian security police.

"The interrogator said, 'Do you know what this is?' I said, 'Yes, it's a cable,'" Mr Arar told the BBC. "He told me: 'Open your right hand.' I opened my right hand and he hit me like crazy. And the pain was so painful and of course I started crying, and then they asked me questions."

Steven Watt from the American Civil Liberties Union has been closely involved in the case.

"The US State Department specifically states that the state security police in Syria torture and abuse detainees in their custody and that's exactly what happened to Maher," he said.

"In the first two weeks in particular he was beaten severely using electric cables, on all parts of his body, and he was detained in what he described as a grave. It was six feet [1.8m] long, three feet wide and six feet high and that was his home for some 10 months."

The Syrian authorities have confirmed that they did interrogate Mr Arar in relation to terrorist activities, but deny that any torture took place.

The case is far from unique. Human rights lawyers have documented similar stories from prisoners transferred to a range of countries which the US State Department recognises as routinely carrying out torture in detention - including Syria and Egypt.

The US does not deny that terror suspects have been transferred in this way.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
We haven't heard from old Napes for a while so perhaps he'd like to answer some questions to get back in the swing of the Syria thing.

How about we start of with two easy ones:

1) How is it that if Syria is funding Jihadis they are torturing those same Jihadis ? AQ and Hezbollah are not exactly the same, Syria supports the Hezbollah jihadists directly.

Originally posted by segovius
2) Why, if the aim of Syria is to oppose the US, are Syria torturing these jihadis for the US , on US orders and as a help to the US in its bogus 'WOT' ?

Helpful source material (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm) Why not ask Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah who says "When the Marines were in Beirut, we screamed, 'Death to America!' Today, when the region is being filled with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, 'Death to America!' is still, and will always be,our slogan."
Hassan Nasrallah is a strong Syrian proponent and no doubt backed by them.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=594

If you question what damage or potential damage that Hezbollah can do read this article:

http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/621163.html

"Hezbollah has more than 5,000 trained terrorists in Lebanon and Syria alone, armed with some 10,000 missiles, tanks and antiaircraft artillery, according to European Union intelligence sources. In addition, Hezbollah has another 15,000 to 20,000 members in the United States, Latin America, Europe and East Asia. Its TV station broadcasts its death-to-America message to an estimated 10 million Muslims. And its leaders have the affection of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Hezbollah's operational budget is $500 million. Its reserves reportedly are greater than bin Laden's fortune or what he collected from the Saudi royal family. Since 9/11, less and less comes from Arab governments. Ditto from Islamic "charitable" organizations - a result of U.S. restrictions on financial transfers and the USA PATRIOT Act. "

Accumulating reports indicate that OBL could actually be in Iran:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0615/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CL19Ag01.html

All of these groups, especially Hezbollah know that alone they are small, but together they have a fighting chance.

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah are playing a very dangerous game. I am sure you will agree. I don't see it as being beyond the realm of possibility that AQ ans Hezbollah are cooperating on some level.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
AQ and Hezbollah are not exactly the same, Syria supports the Hezbollah jihadists directly.

Why not ask Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah who says "When the Marines were in Beirut, we screamed, 'Death to America!' Today, when the region is being filled with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, 'Death to America!' is still, and will always be,our slogan."
Hassan Nasrallah is a strong Syrian proponent and no doubt backed by them.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=594

If you question what damage or potential damage that Hezbollah can do read this article:

http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/621163.html

"Hezbollah has more than 5,000 trained terrorists in Lebanon and Syria alone, armed with some 10,000 missiles, tanks and antiaircraft artillery, according to European Union intelligence sources. In addition, Hezbollah has another 15,000 to 20,000 members in the United States, Latin America, Europe and East Asia. Its TV station broadcasts its death-to-America message to an estimated 10 million Muslims. And its leaders have the affection of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Hezbollah's operational budget is $500 million. Its reserves reportedly are greater than bin Laden's fortune or what he collected from the Saudi royal family. Since 9/11, less and less comes from Arab governments. Ditto from Islamic "charitable" organizations - a result of U.S. restrictions on financial transfers and the USA PATRIOT Act. "

Accumulating reports indicate that OBL could actually be in Iran:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0615/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CL19Ag01.html

All of these groups, especially Hezbollah know that alone they are small, but together they have a fighting chance.

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah are playing a very dangerous game. I am sure you will agree. I don't see it as being beyond the realm of possibility that AQ ans Hezbollah are cooperating on some level.

Memri :lol:

Really - even you can do better.....:rolleyes: