it seems rather doubtful to me that abu hamza al-muhajir (aka abu ayyub al-masri, new boogeyman for iraq) personally slit the two u.s. soldiers' throats.
i mean the guy's in hiding, right? what are the odds he happened to be close enough to the captured soldiers to kill them just after they were captured? and if he didn't happen to be close enough at the time the soldiers were captured, why risk dragging the captured soldiers across occupied iraq or having al-muhajir come to where the soldiers were hidden just so he can hold the knife? and regardless how close he was to where they were captured, wouldn't it be really stupid for the most wanted guy in iraq to go to the captured soldiers when u.s. forces were combing the country looking for them?
just because the story sounds implausible on its face doesn't mean it still won't become entrenched as dogma in the iraq war narrative relatively soon. both sides have an incentive to plug the story. for the u.s., it makes al-muhajir even more scary if he personally slits peoples throats. but al-muhajir also has an incentive to take credit, for he probably also wants to be seen as the badass muhajid and assert his control over zarqawi's group.
with both the u.s. and insurgent web sites supporting the story it's sure to take hold. it's just a matter of time before anyone who dares question whether al-muhaji really held the knife will be called a crazy conspiracy theorists. (not that it really matters whether he did or didn't. slitting someones throat is equally bad to ordering it done)
thus the official history of the iraq war gets written with the combined propaganda of both sides.
