Replies

It's quite possible that it's some form of propaganda, but if you ask me, even if this post is a fake, it's hard to believe significant numbers of AQ's aren't actually feeling this way. For one thing, the post's description of what has happened in Diyala and Anbar is accurate regardless of the post's authenticity.

For another, many have to be wondering if the stories about American weakness are true because they've been hearing for at least 2 years that the helicopters-at-the-Saigon-embassy moment should be any day now, yet over 4 years on, the Americans not only won't budge but are adapting and coming after them even harder with more troops, more effective tactics, and with more and more of the locals on their side who never had much use for all these foreign jihadis to begin with.

Another thing to consider is that just as we don't know for certain the origin of this post and thus can't know that it's not propaganda, a lot of AQ operatives with access to the net who might have read it can't be certain of its origin either, so they can't be certain that it is propaganda.

In view of all that, it's unlikely that AQ morale is exactly high right now. So even if the post is fake, unlike Dan Rather, this could be a genuine case of "fake but accurate".

For one thing, the post's description of what has happened in Diyala and Anbar is accurate regardless of the post's authenticity.

True enough. But any faction, (US, Iraqi, al-Qaeda) could also know that.

The idea that al-Qaeda is posting that its fighters are going to Mosul in force is to me the most incredible portion of the account. Do you really think al-Qaeda is that incompetent?

Of course, the al-Qaeda fighters (mostly Saudis and North Africans who cross the border after flying to Damascus) may simply be telling the local blabbermouths that they're going to Mosul as a disinfo thing when they are instead, for instance, concentrating on preparing to attack the British withdrawal in the south.

But then, who really knows? And that is my point. It's like reading one solier's negative report and thinking that is the whole truth. Or reading another soldier's positive letter and thinking that is the whole truth. Even if you assume they're sincere, you have no way of judging how they evaluate what they've seen, the situation on the ground, how aware they are of the true situation, etc.