Log in


Zarqawi Voice Analysis - Who really killed Nick Berg?

About Zarqawi Voice Analysis

Previous Entry Zarqawi Voice Analysis Jun. 30th, 2004 @ 12:46 pm Next Entry
( Zarqawi Voice Analysis - Part One )

Source: LibertyForum.org

Zarqawi Voice Analysis (June 27)
by VictorP

I’m investigating the murder of Nicholas Evan Berg. I have begun a forensic voice analysis of the available audio messages allegedly made by Abu Musab al Zarqawi with a primary objective of finding a match to the Berg Zarqawi.

The first voice sample of al-Zarqawi appeared April 5/6, 2004. The second on April 29; the third was the Nick Berg video, the fourth was on June 22.
I did not have good audio from the Kim Sun-il video in time to be included in this analysis.

Neither the CIA nor the FBI have made an official (on the record)
evaluation of any Zarqawi voice sample. [ www.cia.gov, www.fbi.gov]
The media, however, is under the impression that the CIA has certified
all tapes as authentic. I have written to the director of the FBI urging
him to make a public statement about the authenticity of the Zarqawi
voice samples. As of this writing, the FBI has not even included Zarqawi
on its list of most wanted terrorists.

This indicates that the FBI does not think Zarqawi exists, does not
consider him a terrorist, has not begun investigating the Berg murder,
or does not need any help catching Zarqawi.

More information about the format of the sound comparison test can
be had on this forum at: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=292733638&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=0#Post292733638
I will make available the complete test to allow others to attempt to verify the results.

For the analysis I used five volumes (or folders) of voice samples:

Vol. I – 33 minute audio of al-Zarqawi released April 5/6, 2004.

Vol. II – 7 minute audio of al-Zarqawi released April 29, 2004.

Vol. III – 7 minute audio of al-Muqrin released April 27, 2004.
(I use this as a control sample.)

Vol. IV – 4 minute audio-video of al-Zarqawi released May 11, 2004.
(The Berg video.)

Vol. V – 16 minute audio of al-Zarqawi released June 22, 2004.

From these, I had a sound technician extract two 60-second samples
(reference clips) and from these take the first 10 seconds (test clips).
(The exact format of the test will be published so others can repeat the
test.) Included in the test are “credibility questions” (matching one
sample of a voice to another sample of the same voice); subjects who
are not able to match at least three out of five voices are removed from
the summary results.

The analysis proceeds in three parts:

Part One (No Arabic required):
------- Sound recognition (the naked ear test by test subjects)
------- Sound patterns (frequency, intensity, “voiceprint” analysis
----------- digital/analog by audio techs)

Part Two (Arabic required):
------- Voice comparisons (characteristics, differences, similarities)
------- Forensic Linguistics (accent, dialect, vocabulary, education level)

Part Three (Islamic scholarship required):
------- Islamic sect identification by form of Namaz & blessings
------- Islamic sect identification by application of Sharia & Fiqh
------- Islamic sect identification by allusions to Hadith, Ijma & Sunna
------- Imam, Prophet, school & sect references
------- Jihadist vs. political/nationalist language used
------- Orthodoxy of Quranic citations/allusions

[for part three the full version of each file is used, not the test clips]

Part One Test Results (Preliminary)

The first part of the study involves sound recognition (to the naked ear,
no Arabic required) and sound analysis using digital and analog (graphic)
characteristics reviewed by sound technicians who also had access to
the test clips. Most participants are English-only but three (so far) Arabic
& English speaking people have participated. A positive average answer
(“ans”) indicates degree of match (+5 being the strongest match). A
negative average answer indicates degree of “no-match” (-5 being the
strongest no-match).

-------------------------------------- SOUND RECOGNITION - - - - SOUND ANALYSIS
1) I-A (clip 9) & I-B (clip 3) - - - - - ans = + 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 5.0

2) II-A (clip 1) & II-B (clip 8) -- - - - -ans = + 3.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 4.0

3) III-A (clip 5) & III-B (clip 10) - - - - -ans = + 3.5 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 4.0

4) IV-A (clip 2) & IV-B (clip 6) - - - - ans = + 3.4 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 5.0

5) V-A (clip 7) & V-B (clip 4) - - - -- ans = + 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 5.0

6) I-A (clip 9) & II-A (clip 1) - - - - - ans = + 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 0.0

7) I-A (clip 9) & III-A (clip 5) - - - - ans = - 1.7 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

8) I-A (clip 9) & IV-A (clip 2) - - - - ans = - 3.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

9) I-A (clip 9) & V-A (clip 7) - - - - - ans = + 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 5.0

10) II-A (clip 1) & III-A (clip 5) - - - - ans = - 1.7 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

11) II-A (clip 1) & IV-A (clip 2) - - - - ans = - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 5.0

12) II-A (clip 1) & V-A (clip 7) - - - - ans = + 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

13) III-A (clip 5) & IV-A (clip 2) - - - -ans = + 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

14) III-A (clip 5) & V-A (clip 7) - - -- -ans = + 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 5.0

15) IV-A (clip 2) & V-A (clip 7) - - - -ans = + 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 1.0

16) I-B (clip 3) & II-B (clip 8) - - - - - ans = - 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 1.0

17) I-B (clip 3) & III-B (clip 10) - - - - ans = - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

18) I-B (clip 3) & IV-B (clip 6) - - - - - ans = - 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 3.0

19) I-B (clip 3) & V-B (clip 5) - - - -- - ans = - 2.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 5.0

20) II-B (clip 8) & III-B (clip 10) - - - -- ans = + 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -ans = - 3.0

21) II-B (clip 8) & IV-B (clip 6) - - - - -ans = - 1.7 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = -3.0

22) II-B (clip 8) & V-B (clip 4) - - - - - ans = - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 4.0

23) III-B (clip 10) & IV-B (clip 6) - - - - ans = - 1.8 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 5.0

24) III-B (clip 10) & V-B (clip 4) - - - - ans = - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = - 5.0

25) IV-B (clip 6) & V-B (clip 4) - - - - ans = + 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - ans = + 0.0

(for key to clips and format of questions, see LibertyForum link above)

Vol. I - [Apr 5/6 Zarqawi]

Part One Test Results (Preliminary)
Sound Recognition & Sound Analysis

1. As to the April 5/6 Zarqawi (Volume I voice):
------- the results are inconclusive as to a match/no match with the
------- April 29 Zarqawi (questions 6, 16).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 27 Muqrin (7, 17).
------- the results conclude no match with the Berg Zarqawi (8, 18).
------- the results conclude no match with the June 22 Zarqawi (9, 19).

Part Two Test Results (Preliminary)
Language Analysis/Forensic Linguistics

Vol. I - [Apr 5/6 Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: the statement is full of Americanisms which sound
unnatural in Arabic. The linguistics are rather non-generic to Arabs so a precise
determination of nationality or dialect is difficult. The accent is non-distinctive.
There is a conscious attempt to pronounce words clearly as though the text is
being read by a teacher. The lack of passion in the voice suggests the words
are not the speaker’s own, so vocabulary is non-determinative.

Discussion: Flattering references to America, Paul Wolfowitz and President
Bush; a self-hating reference to Sunni Islam; and a call to kill Shiite Muslims in
Iraq make this a strange appeal by a supposed jihadist.

America is called “the greatest power in history”. Wolfowitz is addressed as “the
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz – the Pentagon’s Hawk”. (Contrast this
to simply “Tony Blair” and “Bremer”.) Knowing his title, speaking it, and
glorifying him as the Hawk of the Pentagon is rather bizarre. [Editor’s note—
check to see if Wolfy was in Iraq around April 4.]

Here’s a line from the statement: “Bush said in a speech that if democracy
fails in Iraq it will encourage terrorism in the world.” Bush = democracy, Arabs = terrorism. Is this the language of jihad?

And another line: “America realized that Sunni Islam is the real enemy.” To say
“realized” is to imply that the statement is true. “Enemy” is such a negative word
in Arabic (the speaker is appealing to Sunnis) its use would be like someone
saying in a speech at an American political convention: “We are the real assholes.” Not a good rallying cry. Shiite Muslims (the majority in Iraq) receive even less incentive to join the speaker’s cause: he invites Iraqis and foreign Muslims to begin killing the Shiites in Iraq.

Americanisms abound: “my dear nation, the best nation in the world”; “Saddam
the tyrant”; “capitalists inspired by greed”; “an unprecedented media blackout”;
“if the Muslim giant is awakened”; “this war [in Iraq] is the turning point in this
world”; “rights are not given, they are gained by fighting” and so on.

His repeated usage of “Nation of Islam”, “the Islamic nation”, and “the best nation
in the world” give Sunni Muslims a sort of American Indian tribal status – with
Zarqawi having gone off the reservation. Are the Shiite Muslims he intends to
kill part of his “dear nation”? Sunnis do not consider themselves a political or
national entity; Sunnis in Iraq joined Shiites in Iraq to wage war against the
Shiites in Iran. [ed.--fixed. used to say Sunnis]

Arabs consider themselves pure capitalists. The street market of Damascus
is a better example of free market capitalism than the corporate inflexibility of
Wal-Mart. The writer is confusing communism with Islam. Arabs are fanatics
about capitalism.

Part Three Test Results (Preliminary) Islamic Authenticity

Vol. I – [Apr 5/6 Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: The speaker tries mightily to sound like an angry
Sunni Muslim scholar but betrays himself by babbling and by quoting Pat
Robertson. His scholarship is fake; his Islam is pretentious, if not also fake.

Discussion: “The Sunni are brave heroes and lions.” With such phrases,
the speaker wants us to accept that he is street pure – a homeboy among the
Sunni. He also presents himself as a leader of the “heroes of the Mujahidin”
-- the resistance in Iraq. But the resistance is heavily populated with Shiites.
An Arab by nature (if you’ll accept a stereotype) will seek alliances with his
Arabic foes to drive out an infidel invader. Not this Zarqawi. He wants to exalt
his Sunni ways to the Shiite majority. Keep in mind that people who are born
Shi’ah do not convert to Sunni, or vice versa. So emphasizing differences in a
call to mutual defense is self-defeating, toxic.

His reference to scholars and Imams is unconvincing: Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam
Albukhari, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmid, Ibn Kathir. This depth of scholarship
can be obtained in a week. His manner of reference is disrespectful and
not like a Sunni at all. An example, “The Muslim Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah)
was right when he said: ‘They were the main reason that the infidels were able
to attack the Muslims.’“ The quotation is in colloquial Arabic rather than the
literary Arabic of a scholar. A Sunni, and most Muslims, would say, “The
Muslim Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah), God’s mercy be upon him,…”. It’s better not
to mention an Imam at all than to mention him without a blessing. Then to
presumptuously add that he “was right when he said” makes the speaker a
judge of the Imam’s truthfulness. It sounds un-Islamic, disrespectful.

A Muslim avoids frequent use of God (Allah) in his message because it
conveys a casual or even careless use of the Divine Name. The speaker
of the statement is unaware of this restraint and uses the Christian custom
of frequent mention, as well as Christian phrases: “Thanks be to God”, “God is on our side”, “God has blessed us”, “with the help of God”, “if it was not for God”, “we will know what God meant when He said…”, “we ask God”, “God has
blessed you”, “I thank God for sending His Prophet to bring truth”, and so on.

This is Christian language. Every mention of God requires a blessing, such
as “the most Merciful, the Creator of the Universe”. Wondering if God is
on our side, seeking blessings from God, asking God for things – these are
Judeo-Christian phrases.

To a Muslim, “we will know what God meant when He said” , is blasphemous.
We cannot know the mind of God and when He speaks we listen and obey, we
don’t try to reckon what he meant.

Two contradictions in the statement should put to rest any doubts about the lack
of Islamic authenticity. First, the reference to “prophecies of the Bible against
the Muslims” and, second, the call to kill Shiites in Iraq.

The first shows that the writer of the statement gets his knowledge of Islam from
Pat Robertson, America’s leading Christian commentator. All prophets and
prophecies of the Bible are accepted by Muslims; no Muslim would accept that
the Bible is “against” them or use such language. Ibn Kathir, mentioned by the
writer of the statement, was a major scholar of apocalyptic Islam. The Quran
states (and Ibn Kathir emphasizes in his writing) that Antichrist (the Liar or Dajjal)
will be brought to power by liars (dajjals) but will be destroyed by Jesus as He
descends from Heaven in the last days. This, in fact, was Kathir’s vision of jihad,
spiritual warfare in the last days by resisting deception.

The second contradiction defies common sense. The statement is an appeal
to “my beloved nation”, “the nation of Islam”, “my dear nation, the best nation
in the world”. It is a call to Islamic fighters who “are united by the Koran in
spite of the differences in languages and colors.” The speaker denounces
those who “have so much hatred towards the Muslims. . . They want to separate
the Muslims.” The speaker concludes: “Muslim nation, you should know that
separation is far from Islam.” Yet, the speaker declares, “we will continue to
kill [Shi’ah] Imams in revenge” and says “Kill the Americans and the Shi’ah and
the collaborators.”

There is a Shiite majority in Iraq, also an overwhelming occupying force of
Americans. A foreigner, Zarqawi, comes to Iraq to do what? To kill the Shiites
as well as the Americans. His appeal is going to be limited and his enemies

Vol. II - [Apr 29 Zarqawi]

Part One Test Results (Preliminary)
Sound Recognition & Sound Analysis

2. As to the April 29 Zarqawi (Volume II voice):
------- the results are inconclusive as to a match/no match with the
------- April 6 Zarqawi (questions 6, 16).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 27 Muqrin (10, 20).
------- the results conclude no match with the Berg Zarqawi (11, 21).
------- the results conclude no match with the June 22 Zarqawi (12, 22).

Part Two Test Results (Preliminary)
Language Analysis/Forensic Linguistics

Vol. II - [Apr 29 Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: The dialect is possibly the Transjordan Arabic spoken
in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, although the accent is at times Palestinian (a blend
of influences). There is a high degree of clarity as though spoken by a teacher
or a translator. The statement is written and spoken by an educated person, but
is not formal Arabic (Modern Standard Arabic). The phraseology indicates a
Western education grounded in Christian Biblical expressions and has a military
tone. The speaker uses Islamic expressions in a casual way, as though trying
to appeal to Muslims in style but not substance. The speaker is a marginal
Muslim, if a Muslim at all.

Discussion: This Zarqawi is different from the April 5 Zarqawi in that he flatters
Jordan, rather than America, and promises not to kill Muslims. “We will never
dare shed a drop of your blood.” Also, he makes no appeal to the “Nation of
Islam” and declares war on the Jordanian government while taking pains to
point out what a strong ally the government is to America and what a formidable
foe they are to jihad. He reports five air bases and truck routes that are
assisting the American war effort. He delivers the taunt, “Do not dream of
liberating Jerusalem while the Jordanian Intelligence is in existence.” He says
the Jordanian Intelligence prison is “indeed the Arabic Guantanamo”.

The invective seems to be designed for the ears of the United States Congress,
the objective to get hundreds of millions of dollars in aid sent to Jordan. There
is no mention of the erupting Abu Ghraib prison scandal or of an American
civilian hostage (Nick Berg).

There are some suspiciously American phrases:

“the (chemical) bomb was made with basic materials that are available on
the open market”

“Jordan used to be and still is a rear base that provides [America] with supplies
and equipment. . .. It became one of the main routes for supplies through an
air route that extends to the Kurdish airports in the north . . .”

“In addition to the fleet of trucks that moves food, Jordanian trucks transport
supplies and trailers for the Americans.”

Part Three Test Results (Preliminary) Islamic Authenticity

Vol. II – [Apr 29 Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: This is a political, not an Islamic message. It is like
a Saddam Hussein speech that has some obligatory Islamic greeting and
blessing, but there is not enough Islamic substance in it to analyze. The
speaker seems as much influenced by the New Testament as the Quran.
The greeting and blessing are similar in form to those of the Epistles of Paul
in the Christian New Testament.

Vol. III - [Apr 27 Muqrin]

Part One Test Results (Preliminary)
Sound Recognition & Sound Analysis

3. As to the April 27 Muqrin (Volume III voice):
------- the results conclude no match with the April 6 Zarqawi (7, 17).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 29 Zarqawi (10, 20).
------- the results conclude no match with the Berg Zarqawi (13, 23).
------- the results conclude no match with the June 22 Zarqawi (14, 24).

Part Two Test Results (Preliminary)
Language Analysis/Forensic Linguistics

Vol. III - [Apr 27 Muqrin]

Summary Conclusion:


Vol. IV - [May 11 -- Berg Zarqawi]

Part One Test Results (Preliminary)
Sound Recognition & Sound Analysis

4. As to the May 11 (Berg) Zarqawi (Volume IV voice):
------- the results conclude no match with the April 6 Zarqawi (8, 18).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 29 Zarqawi (11, 21).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 27 Muqrin (13, 23).
------- the results are inconclusive as to a match/no match with the June
------- 22 Zarqawi (questions 15, 25)

Part Two Test Results (Preliminary)
Language Analysis/Forensic Linguistics

Vol. IV - [May 11 -- Berg Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: The statement is spoken in a colloquial Arabic but with
some awkward expressions as though they were translated into Arabic. That is,
the words probably came from a non-Arab mind, not an Arab heart. The vocabulary and diction indicate an educated person is speaking, although what
appear to be quotations are not rendered in the literary Arabic they require. The
dialect is not Transjordan or Bedouin but possibly from Sudan, Yemen or Egypt.

Most striking is the appeal for Muslims to rise up in revenge for the “satanic
abuse” or “evil humiliation” at the Abu Ghraib prison: the appeal is without
passion or the oratorical flourish that a leader of jihad is expected to employ.
It is more passionate than a weather report, but not by much. It is unconvincing
as a statement by a terrorist. It may even have been spoken under duress.

Discussion: The speaker uses the same degree of language that Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld uses to describe what happened at Abu Ghraib
prison: humiliation, abuse -- but not torture.

He seems to borrow phrases from the April 5 Zarqawi: “the Nation of Islam”,
“thanks to God alone” (a Christian expression), “the greatest power in history” (America).

The speaker tells “the American soldier’s wife” or “the mother and wife of the
American soldier(s)” that “we offered the American administration a chance to
exchange this prisoner for some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib but they
refused”. This kind of “blood oath to the innocents” is extremely serious to
Arabic people. It is spoken to God (Allah) with peril to one’s entire family if
it is not true. In fact, it was a lie. That means the speaker is not an Arab,
or he did not know the truth, or he was being forced to make the statement.

This requires us to evaluate if the tension and emotion in the speaker’s voice
is from anger or fear. At those points in the speech where the volume of
anger should increase (“you will get nothing from us but coffin after coffin”)
it doesn’t. Other parts of the text convey a tone of nervousness, rather than
viciousness. The flatness of the call to revenge is another place where the
intensity of anger is lacking. Overall, the speaker sounds more fearful than
angry and was perhaps forced to deliver the statement.

In short, the speaker may not be a terrorist, let alone Zarqawi.

Part Three Test Results (Preliminary) Islamic Authenticity

Vol. IV – [May 11 -- Berg Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: The statement leads up to the execution and
beheading of a prisoner but makes no attempt to establish an Islamic
legal argument for the execution. The casual mention that the Prophet
ordered some prisoners beheaded, so that is our example, is so flippant as
to offend Muslims, rather than justify the action to them. The internal
evidence from the statement – ignoring the execution of the prisoner
altogether -- is enough to conclude that no Muslim wrote this statement.

Discussion: The statement claims both revenge as the reason for the
killing and also an Islamic injunction to kill polytheists, invoking the name of
God during the killing. Instead of rambling on about politics, the speaker
should have known enough about Islam to at least make an appeal to Muslim
history. (The victim, by the way, was not a polytheist but Jewish, whom
Muslims consider monotheists.)

Negative statements about Islam show disbelief and contempt. There is
mention of an “attempt to defeat Islam”, as though God is in trouble; and
the phrase, “Islam is slaughtered and can be seen bleeding its dignity.” No Muslim would say that, ever. It compares to using a pornographic phrase in
a Christian message. You don’t take it out and try to save the rest of the message, it poisons the entire message.

Worse is a phrase the speaker uses: “Allah is the greatest and the honor
goes to Allah and to his Messenger and to the militants.” This compares
to listening to a Christian message and hearing Jesus referred to as
“Jesus H. Christ”. It is a blasphemous construction, regardless of the
innocence of the speaker. Mention of Allah, with praise and blessing,
(including one of the many expressions of the name), would stand alone.
Mention of the Messenger (the Prophet), with blessing, would follow.
Mention of the companions of the Prophet would be allowed in the next
phrase. But saying that the honor (worship) that goes to Allah should
also go to his Messenger and to the militants is unthinkable and has no
possible linguistic defense (“He was in a hurry”?).

Vol. V - [Jun22 Zarqawi]

Part One Test Results (Preliminary)
Sound Recognition & Sound Analysis

5. As to the June 22 Zarqawi (Volume V voice):
------- the results conclude no match with the April 6 Zarqawi (9, 19).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 29 Zarqawi (12, 22).
------- the results conclude no match with the April 27 Muqrin (14, 24).
------- the results are inconclusive as to a match/no match with the Berg
------- Zarqawi (questions 15, 25)

Part Two Test Results (Preliminary)
Language Analysis/Forensic Linguistics

Vol. V - [Jun22 Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: This statement is completely different from preceding
Zarqawi statements. The dialect could very well be Iraqi. The speaker is
educated, though he does not use Quranic Arabic when he quotes the Quran.
Rather than use academic language (Modern Standard Arabic) he uses the
colloquial form throughout most of his statement. There are some Western
influences and definite New Testament influences (with some Old Testament
allusions as well). It is a newsy report, rather than a terrorist threat. It is heavy
on analysis and commentary with some American-style sarcasm thrown in.

Discussion: The speaker does not seem to be aware of the Kim Sun-il beheading and makes an incorrect/indirect reference to Nick Berg (calling him
an American soldier). His theme that pride is a good thing and submission is a bad thing is more in line with the US Marine Corps than with Islam (which
means “submission”).

His reference to certain prison photos (Iraqi women being forced to drink
semen from a glass) is revealing, since only the US military and the US Congress have seen those photos.

The sarcasm, though, stands out. “America has come hoping and dreaming
that it will be welcomed with roses and as a just conqueror.” (Has he been
watching Senator Ted Kennedy on C-SPAN?) “Then let the black men and the
cheap soldiers from the Third World pay the price.” (Do Third World people
refer to themselves as Third World?) “With the approach of the US elections,
the Cowboy wants to score some points, even if they are false achievements.”
And he mentions “Allawi – excuse me – the ‘democratically-elected prime
minister’” with the bite of Jon Stewart. He also mentions “one-eyed Moshe
Dayan” who “said in the past that the Arab countries are like dogs which
protect us.” Zarqawi was only 14 years old when Dayan died (1981). Was
he studying him in school? What’s the purpose of this reference?

This Zarqawi has some good points. “Every Muslim is our brother, whom we
defend. Let Muslims everywhere know that we have not and will not kill a
Muslim. . . .” He also makes clear that he is NOT in Fallujah. “I am traveling
all over Iraq,” hoping that the bombing strikes in Fallujah meant for him will

Part Three Test Results (Preliminary) Islamic Authenticity

Vol. V – [Jun22 Zarqawi]

Summary Conclusion: This is a political statement peppered with a bit of
Islam, rather than an Islamic statement peppered with a bit of politics. The
speaker is superficially but pleasantly versed in Islam and does not make the
horrid mistakes of previous Zarqawis. But it is, after all, un-Islamic for a
marginal Muslim to quote the Quran in common Arabic.

Discussion: There is not much to work with here. The speaker cites the
story of Balaam (which is mentioned in two books of the New Testament as
well as the Hebrew Torah) and mentions Moses, with a blessing. Balaam got into trouble with God (Allah) for hiring himself out to pronounce a curse on
Israel. This is a curious allusion for a jihadist.

The full document (and a shorter one) can be downloaded by
signing on to YAHOO as user: zarqawi_voice_analysis
password: public
Leave a comment
Date:July 1st, 2004 06:37 pm (UTC)
who cares
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com