Al-Qaeda, a politically-driven fantasy?

senseiman said:
Most people across the planet were disgusted by 9/11 and there is no evidence that recruitment for Al-Quaida went up as a result. The invasion of Iraq however has sent recruitment skyrocketing, which is exactly what the CIA said would happen before the war started, raising serious questions about the Bush administration's competency to handle the 'war on terror'. As for failing to repeat 9/11, its worth mentioning that attacks of that scale require years of planning and preperation (5 years in the case of 9/11) so it isn't a surprise to anybody that another attack of that scale hasn't occured yet. But they have had a lot of smaller attacks, like the Spanish train bombings and the attack on the British consulate in Turkey, not to mention their activity in Iraq.
While those are widely repeated generalizations, they are solidly disputed. But at least we agree that al-Qaeda isn't a myth.

First, let's look at the generalization that the war in Iraq has sent al-Qaeda recruitment skyrocketing. This puts into the reader's mind an image of previously peaceful and non-threatening muslims signing up to get shot by the coalition forces. That's a romantic notion purported by a media that was already against the invasion, but it's not accurate. Take for example the Jordanian terrorist, al-Zarqawi. He already had his own network, called al-Tawhid or something. After he and his men started fighting in this conlfict, he pledged his allegiance to bin Laden and now calls his group al-Qaeda. They're still Islamic terrorists striking against American and Israeli interests, just a different name. THAT'S what is, far more often than not, swelling the al-Qaeda ranks. Besides, bin Laden would be an even bigger idiot than he already is if he wasn't trying to recruit. He lost 70% of his group to death or capture during the Afghan operation. You're expecting him to lie down and die in the face of a conflict he wanted? That's just so... Jimmy Carter.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that 9/11 was their only plan? This group has always had dozens of plans, several already well along. Remember the plans for the NY financial district? They were three years in the making and had been updated just a couple of months prior to their discovery. Do you seriously believe that this group, which numbered in the thousands, had all their efforts poured into 20 men and four airliners, and then, if successful, they would have to start from scratch before embarking on another attack?

'Splain that to me....
 
Censport,

I can see your point about Al-quaida recruitment coming from pre-existing groups. But there are a few qualifiers. For one thing I don't think Zarqawi had ever succesfully attacked an American target before the Iraq war gave him boundless opportunities to do so. Secondly, while most of the Iraqi insurgents don't directly belong to Al-Quaida linked groups the fact is that the vast majority of those people (estimated at 200,000 by the head of Iraqi intelligence) shooting at American troops every day probably would never have dreamed of killing Americans before they invaded their country. This isn't directly related to Al-Quaida, but when looking at anti-American/western violence in general you can't discount the huge increase in numbers created by the Iraq war. Plus while many of the insurgents/terrorists may have harbored strong anti-American sentiments before the war, there is no doubt that the invasion has had a strong effect in mobilizing those people - not just in Iraq but across the Arab and Muslim world. They say Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the world's leading terrorist training ground. Given the vast differences in wealth, strategic importance and military training between the two countries this has not been a good trade for the US. I should also mention that Bin Ladin didn't "lie down and die in the face of a conflict he wanted", he simply got up and went off to continue fighting from a different location, which may have been his plan all along.

As for other attacks, like I mentioned above they have pulled off plenty (Spain bombings, attacks in Turkey, Iraq, etc.), so obviously I wasn't implying that "9/11 was their only plan." They have probably had dozens of attacks which each took years of preparation planned over the past decade or so, but only one of them (9/11) ever materialized into a full blown atrocity of massive proportions. What I was saying is that attacks of that scale are not every day occurences so it is not at all surprising that Al-Quaida have not followed up on 9/11 with an equally devastating attack in the past 3 and a half years. I think this is more an indication of the size, scale and difficulty of such an attack rather than an indication that Al-Quaida is finished, which is what BruceHall was implying above.
 
First, let's look at the generalization that the war in Iraq has sent al-Qaeda recruitment skyrocketing.

That generalization is incorrect. It's terrorism in general that has skyrocketed. Even the CIA has admitted this. (Not to mention countless other independent organizations.)

Secondly, while most of the Iraqi insurgents don't directly belong to Al-Quaida linked groups the fact is that the vast majority of those people (estimated at 200,000 by the head of Iraqi intelligence) shooting at American troops every day probably would never have dreamed of killing Americans before they invaded their country. This isn't directly related to Al-Quaida, but when looking at anti-American/western violence in general you can't discount the huge increase in numbers created by the Iraq war. Plus while many of the insurgents/terrorists may have harbored strong anti-American sentiments before the war, there is no doubt that the invasion has had a strong effect in mobilizing those people - not just in Iraq but across the Arab and Muslim world.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Things aren't any safer since the invasion. It's worse. Further more, the upcoming elections aren't going to change anything. It is not just the Sunnis who will boycott the elections. The Iraq National Foundation Conference will too. They're skipping the whole thing because of the lack of an international body to oversee it. Not to mention four of Iraq's 18 provinces may not be able to "fully" participate in the elections. (Which contain more than half of the population.)
 
What you guys (senseiman & mad pierrot) fail to realize is this isn't an America vs. Iraq conflict. It's coalition forces (primarily American, British, Australian, Polish and Italian) against the old Ba'athist regime and the Jordanian, Syrian, Iranian and Saudi fighters that have been pouring across the border into Iraq. The Ba'athists aren't fighting just because it's Americans, they're fighting because they used to have a death grip on Iraq and they're losing that power. They know that if ordinary Iraqi men (and especially women) get the chance to choose their leaders, it won't be them, and they won't have the unchallenged control over those people and their money that they're used to. It just happens that the people removing them from power are mostly American (And who else would it be?).

If it was the French, the Germans and/or the Russians, we'd be looking at the same war. The Ba'athists don't want to lose their power. Now the fighters pouring in are probably wanting to fight Americans, I'll give you that. But better there than here, from my perspective.

If the Sunnis and the INFC want to boycott the elections because the UN is too scared to show up (probably not enough condoms to go around for a delegation, after sending so many to the tsunami victims), let them. They now have the freedom to remove their political significance. It's the first election where they haven't been required to show up, required to vote, and required to vote for Hussein in order to keep their heads. If they don't want to vote, it's now their choice. Let them shoot themselves in the foot!

In case you haven't noticed, most Americans don't vote. They still make the effort to b!tc#, but if they have to wait in line an hour, they consider themselves disenfranchised. Meanwhile, Iraqi ex-pats in the U.S. are driving half a day each way to register to vote and doing it again in two weeks to vote. And they're excited to do so! They're having friends take their pictures at the registration table!

Finally, al-Qaeda has lost men, financing, and structure. My guess (and this stuff is really only known by a handful people - bin Laden and his top guys and the people here working the Threat Matrix) is that they aren't capable of organizing an attack on the scale of 9/11. A dirty bomb, a truck bomb (or limo bomb) or something like that perhaps. They're not finished. And if you think the Bush administration can't take some credit for that, you need to stop getting your news from the BBC.

Are either of you guys old enough to remember the Carter administration? If you had lived through that (as I did), you wouldn't be so haste to criticize the current administration. Sure, we're not doing a perfect job. Our borders need to be more secure, the TSA head needs to be replaced, the INS head needs to be replaced, and we could sure use some common-sense racial profiling. But if you want to know what the world would be like if we were swearing in John Kerry today, go back and look at how Carter handled terrorism.
 
bossel said:
Interesting piece I found on BBC, regarding a series called "The Power of Nightmares" aired last autumn. The series tried to show that much of the "War on Terror" is in fact a pursuit of a fantasy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4171213.stm

Quote:
"As the films showed, wherever one looks for this "al-Qaeda" organisation - from the mountains of Afghanistan to the "sleeper cells" in America - the British and Americans are pursuing a fantasy.

The bombs in Madrid and Bali showed clearly the seriousness of the threat - but they are not evidence of a new and overwhelming threat unlike any we have experienced before. And above all they do not - in the words of the British government - "threaten the life of the nation". That is simply untrue."

Hey bossel, nice thread, I also happend to see this documentary when it aired some time ago, I must say it was very well done, and I completely agree with it, maybe because it was so articulate and argued each point carefully with evidence and facts.
 
Duo said:
...maybe because it was so articulate and argued each point carefully with evidence and facts.
Maybe it was because you really wanted to believe it. Say, did you hear about that Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Yeah, turns out it was all a hoax. No really... it was one of our Stinger missiles... what's that? Why is there still a missing airliner, flight crew and passengers? Ah well.... that is.... uh... Say, did you know that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9/11.......
 
Captain Kirk voice: "Must...turn...logic circuit...OFF....Will...only.....cause...PAIN..."
 
Censport said:
Maybe it was because you really wanted to believe it. Say, did you hear about that Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Yeah, turns out it was all a hoax. No really... it was one of our Stinger missiles... what's that? Why is there still a missing airliner, flight crew and passengers? Ah well.... that is.... uh... Say, did you know that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9/11.......

Funny thing, the document is on right now actually, and amongs many many things that the British and US gov fooled ppl in was the concept of a dirty bomb, something that doesn't even work, as it was tested by both the US army, iraqi army, and also the energy ministry in England and no one concluded that it work. And wat about those immense bunker networks that were in afganistan, all there were sm rat holes with old ak 47 ammunitions etc. Instead of just beleiving what the media and gov. tells u, why not try to chek out the facts.
 
Duo said:
Instead of just beleiving what the media and gov. tells u, why not try to chek out the facts.
Censport checking facts? :shock:

Censport said:
against the old Ba'athist regime and the Jordanian, Syrian, Iranian and Saudi fighters that have been pouring across the border into Iraq
Funny, that some of the fiercest resistance originated from Fallujah, where the Baathists were not really strong. Foreign fighters seem to be vastly outnumbered by Iraqi resistance fighters. They get the biggest publicity though, esp. for their terror attacks.

They're not finished. And if you think the Bush administration can't take some credit for that
Oh well, I wouldn't take away the credit of not finishing al-Qaeda from the Bushites.

we could sure use some common-sense racial profiling
Could you elaborate on that? Sounds interesting.
BTW, which common sense? Yours? Then I'd have to quote the KLF: "Good night, America! We looooooove you!"
 
Ok, where to start?

Meanwhile, Iraqi ex-pats in the U.S. are driving half a day each way to register to vote and doing it again in two weeks to vote. And they're excited to do so! They're having friends take their pictures at the registration table!

Which is funny, contrasted to the situation in their own country, where most people are afraid to even go near voting centers. Hmm... Besides the boycotts, people are being threatened to have their familes killed if they vote for a candidate they don't like. Hmm.... This is a question of legitimacy. How can the future government be legitimate if the majority of a nation's citizens refuse to recognize elections imposed upon them by an occupying force? Democracy in Iraq is a joke. We still haven't even fixed things in Afghanistan, which has continually gone downhill. As for getting my news from the BBC, I actually get my news about Afghanistan from people who have been there before and after America's arrival. (I'm actually in email contact with a student there right now.)

About the Ba'athists? I've got some news for you; it's more than just them.

They're not finished. And if you think the Bush administration can't take some credit for that, you need to stop getting your news from the BBC.

You're right. They're not finished, thanks to the mismanagement of the Bush regime, who could have stopped them in Afganistan. :)
 
Censport said:
What you guys (senseiman & mad pierrot) fail to realize is this isn't an America vs. Iraq conflict. It's coalition forces (primarily American, British, Australian, Polish and Italian) against the old Ba'athist regime and the Jordanian, Syrian, Iranian and Saudi fighters that have been pouring across the border into Iraq.

For one thing, 90% of the international forces in Iraq are American. Secondly, the insurgency is flaring in only four of Iraq's provinces ALL of which are occupied by US forces. So its a little misleading to label this war a 'coalition' effort just because a few countries were cajoled into sending token support to it despite the wishes of the vast majority of their populations to keep out of the war.

As for the insurgent side of the order of battle, it seems that at most 10% of insurgents are foreigners, almost all of them Arabs who share the same language, religion and culture as Iraqis (as opposed to 100% of the coalition forces who have nothing in common with the Iraqis). The remaining 90% probably do contain a large number of Ba'athists, but it also seems likely that a large number of them are regular Iraqis who are seeking to avenge the loss of family members, have joined out of tribal loyalty or are simply among the 70% of Iraqis who are unemployed thanks to the war. Then there are the Shi'ite militiamen under Moqtada Al-Sadr - whose father was murdered by Saddam - who were all enemies of the Ba'ath party.

censport said:
The Ba'athists aren't fighting just because it's Americans, they're fighting because they used to have a death grip on Iraq and they're losing that power. They know that if ordinary Iraqi men (and especially women) get the chance to choose their leaders, it won't be them, and they won't have the unchallenged control over those people and their money that they're used to. It just happens that the people removing them from power are mostly American (And who else would it be?).

This is probably accurate, though it isn't the "ordinary Iraqi men (and especially women)" per se that they fear. For one thing, women weren't suppressed under secular Ba'athist rule. Rather, its the fact that under free elections religious Shi'ite parties (no defenders of woman's rights) will win.

censport said:
If it was the French, the Germans and/or the Russians, we'd be looking at the same war.
Actually the French, Germans and Russians would never have been stupid/arrogant enough to invade in the first place.

censport said:
The Ba'athists don't want to lose their power. Now the fighters pouring in are probably wanting to fight Americans, I'll give you that. But better there than here, from my perspective.

Better there than here? How exactly would thousands of militant Islamic radicals who probably earn about a dollar a day ever be able to afford to fly to America and, better yet, how would they get into the country?

censport said:
If the Sunnis and the INFC want to boycott the elections because the UN is too scared to show up (probably not enough condoms to go around for a delegation, after sending so many to the tsunami victims), let them.

Thats a cheap shot. For one thing, the reason the UN withdrew from Iraq is because their headquarters was blown to pieces in the orgy of violence brought on by the US invasion. Maybe if US forces could have restored security (which they were obliged to do as the occupying power) the UN could have returned. Secondly this war was started under US, not UN authority so why the hell is the onus suddenly on the UN to go cleaning up the US's mess?



censport said:
Finally, al-Qaeda has lost men, financing, and structure. My guess (and this stuff is really only known by a handful people - bin Laden and his top guys and the people here working the Threat Matrix) is that they aren't capable of organizing an attack on the scale of 9/11. A dirty bomb, a truck bomb (or limo bomb) or something like that perhaps. They're not finished. And if you think the Bush administration can't take some credit for that, you need to stop getting your news from the BBC.

I'm a little confused, earlier you took issue with me for saying that Al-Quaida didn't have the capability to repeat 9/11 but that didn't mean they were finished. Now you are saying the same thing?

I'll give the Bush administration credit for every terrorist act he stops. But that doesn't absolve him of the blame for his numerous policy failures, notably Iraq.

censport said:
Are either of you guys old enough to remember the Carter administration? If you had lived through that (as I did), you wouldn't be so haste to criticize the current administration. Sure, we're not doing a perfect job. Our borders need to be more secure, the TSA head needs to be replaced, the INS head needs to be replaced, and we could sure use some common-sense racial profiling. But if you want to know what the world would be like if we were swearing in John Kerry today, go back and look at how Carter handled terrorism.

The Carter years? My god, what a terrorist bloodbath that was! I take it you are referring to the Iran hostage taking in which a grand total of ZERO American hostages were killed? Compared with Bush where -- lets see....we've got 3000 killed on 9/11, half a dozen killed by Anthrax, about 1,500 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and over 10,000 more wounded....Yup I can sure see how much we have Bush to thank for.
 
Okay, we're in Iraq. There are no WMD's. IED's are going off like popcorn. US credibility is running on half its cylinders. al-Qaeda has better recruiting now that the have a cause and a location to actually die in. (Who's keeping score at this point? Is the US killing more than al-Qaeda?) No mention in today's inaguaral address of either Iraq or al-Qaeda. Hmmmm maybe they don't exist. (Chant to self: Saddam was a bad guy, Iraq is better off, this is good, Saddam was a bad guy...)

The Question is so what do we do now?
I think al-Qaeda is still a real threat. But like I've said before, domestic animals kill more americans than terrorists. Traffic, drugs, domestic violence and street gangs are a far more real threat. 9/11 was very bad and we never want that to happen again, but do we live our lives like the wolf is at the door? What makes sense? What is the proper proportional reaction?

By the way, did we just okay the concept of pre-emptive war? It was the rationale the Japanese used 65 years ago. Maybe it is okay now. I wonder what else we can dig up? Canada looks kinda threatening. Iceland-- could they be next?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that Al qaeda was never what the media and US gov made it appear to be, there is no such network, just people that share the same radical islamist ideology, by makin al qaeda seem like this huge giant evil monster, the US gave bin laden a great weapon against the west, in fact bin l. never used the name al qaeda only after the 9/11 bombings and that was after the US had built this hype and myth of al q. after the embassy bombings. THe biggest failure of the US was to realize that they had to fight an ideology, radical islam, instead of an evil network, and that's why the war on terror has been a failure.
 
mad pierrot said:
Which is funny, contrasted to the situation in their own country, where most people are afraid to even go near voting centers. Hmm... Besides the boycotts, people are being threatened to have their familes killed if they vote for a candidate they don't like. Hmm.... This is a question of legitimacy. How can the future government be legitimate if the majority of a nation's citizens refuse to recognize elections imposed upon them by an occupying force? Democracy in Iraq is a joke.
A joke? Nobody's going to vote? I respectullfy disagree:
Article: 80% of Iraqis plan to vote

As for the legitimacy question, I have a couple of points there too. For one thing, there is a very vocal faction of a political party in my country that calls any election their candidate doesn't win "illegitimate". Even if he wins by over 3,000,000 votes. But when their guy "wins" with only 43% of the vote in a low-turnout race, or their candidate doesn't win until the votes are counted by hand, well, that's "justice". Que sabro....

Secondly, considering their previous elections were forced by threat of beheading, I don't think it's fair to call the next ones "imposed upon them by an occupying force". I think it would be more accurate to say that they're being offered by the force that removed their dictator.

mad pierrot said:
As for getting my news from the BBC, I actually get my news about Afghanistan from people who have been there before and after America's arrival. (I'm actually in email contact with a student there right now.)
Good for you. And don't assume that I get all of my news from the White House press secretary. You see, I live just south of Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne.
 
Oy Vey!

Good to talk with you Censport. I enjoy a good political discussion, and it's rare to find someone as continually respectful as you. I also respectfully disagree with you.

A joke? Nobody's going to vote? I respectullfy disagree:
Article: 80% of Iraqis plan to vote

We could trade articles back and forth all day. Take THIS for example.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they're being offered by the force that removed their dictator.

I would agree with you, but an "offer" implies that it can be refused. Were the people given any alternatives?

Good for you. And don't assume that I get all of my news from the White House press secretary. You see, I live just south of Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne.

I don't. And I'm glad you're getiting first hand accounts, too.

Check this out:A great article HERE.

Whew! It's about 1:55am here now, so I better get some sleep. (Gotta get up and run in the morning.)

:relief:
 
senseiman said:
For one thing, 90% of the international forces in Iraq are American. Secondly, the insurgency is flaring in only four of Iraq's provinces ALL of which are occupied by US forces.
We also a larger active military than the other countries. Seondly, thank you for admitting that the conflict is only present in four spots of Iraq and not encompassing the entire country as the wolrd media would have us believe.

senseiman said:
As for the insurgent side of the order of battle, it seems that at most 10% of insurgents are foreigners, almost all of them Arabs who share the same language, religion and culture as Iraqis (as opposed to 100% of the coalition forces who have nothing in common with the Iraqis). The remaining 90% probably do contain a large number of Ba'athists, but it also seems likely that a large number of them are regular Iraqis who are seeking to avenge the loss of family members, have joined out of tribal loyalty or are simply among the 70% of Iraqis who are unemployed thanks to the war. Then there are the Shi'ite militiamen under Moqtada Al-Sadr - whose father was murdered by Saddam - who were all enemies of the Ba'ath party.
That percentage doesn't gel with the information I've been getting. We've obviously got different sources. Also, if it's not about retaining control, then why put yourself in the sights of a Marine sniper? This "occupying force" just took out your genocidal dictator, and the quickest way to remove said force is to vote on your new constitution, elect your leaders and get your new government up and running. But noooo, you're gonna sign up for your RPG. Brilliant.
senseiman said:
Actually the French, Germans and Russians would never have been stupid/arrogant enough to invade in the first place.
More like they're too corrupt. See: Oil-for-Food Scandal.
senseiman said:
Better there than here? How exactly would thousands of militant Islamic radicals who probably earn about a dollar a day ever be able to afford to fly to America and, better yet, how would they get into the country?
Same way they did the last two times, with funding from bin Laden and his network of financiers. And, like last time, they would enter through that great champion of freedom in the world, Canada. Feel better about yourself?

senseiman said:
Thats a cheap shot. For one thing, the reason the UN withdrew from Iraq is because their headquarters was blown to pieces in the orgy of violence brought on by the US invasion. Maybe if US forces could have restored security (which they were obliged to do as the occupying power) the UN could have returned. Secondly this war was started under US, not UN authority so why the hell is the onus suddenly on the UN to go cleaning up the US's mess?
Cheap? Arguably. Inaccurate? Not at all. See: Sex-for-Food scandal; Congo.

The UN ran at the first hint of danger. You know, like Clinton with Somalia. That's exactly what our enemies want, and the precedent for expecting that from us was Jimmy Carter. But more on him later...

If the UN won't stop genocide, can't prevent wars, can't or won't provide humanitarian relief, then what purpose do they serve? Why do they still exist? The UN wanted to be in Iraq to keep an eye on "American atrocities", but things got a little too hot in the kitchen. Boo hoo.

senseiman said:
The Carter years? My god, what a terrorist bloodbath that was! I take it you are referring to the Iran hostage taking in which a grand total of ZERO American hostages were killed? Compared with Bush where -- lets see....we've got 3000 killed on 9/11, half a dozen killed by Anthrax, about 1,500 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and over 10,000 more wounded....Yup I can sure see how much we have Bush to thank for.
Carter set the standard for appeasement and cowardice. Yes, I'm talking about the 444-day Iran hostage crisis which came about because Carter turned his back on the Shah, our questionable but reliable ally. Things have only gotten worse since then. Nobel peace prize... HA! How many people, how many countries did he liberate from tyranny? How many regimes did he end? Any progress in the Cold War? Nope. Haiti? Don't get me started. What did he do? He got Sadat killed, that's what. The one Egyptian who would sit down at the table with Israel. Carter barely protected his family from a rabbit. He shouldn't have been trusted with the country.

Things didn't get much better under Clinton. Terrorists bomb the WTC? Treat it like a criminal act and give the attorneys something to do. Prevent the CIA from connecting the dots. Take an enemy that's willing to kill themselves in an attack and threaten them with life in an American prison. Terrorists from the same group bomb US embassies abroad. Make a speech. Fire a missile. Get a hummer. Focus your AG on Bill Gates. Worked great, didn't it?

Or, you could topple a dictator who has a history of financing terror and invading his neighbors, preferably one who is violating a UN cease-fire agreement, and give the terrorists a place to die far from your citizens' homes and businesses. Will it be easy? Painless? Quick? Without sacrifice? Perfect? Will it be easy for people who are used to encapsulated sitcoms and climate control to stomach? Gee, I don't know where you got that idea. Maybe from the guy who fought wars from 15,000' in the air and ran at the first sign of blood?

Keep in mind that only 37% of colonists supported America's Revolutionary War in 1776. Also remember that ending slavery in the U.S. was seen as an impossible goal in 1860. In '81, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq without provocation and was condemned by everyone, including Reagan. (They even did it on a Sunday to minimize the body count. It worked: Only one French scientist was killed.) The anti-war voices in this country were loud and clear against our fighting Germany prior to 1941, as they had never attacked us. Just because something is unpopular or difficult, doesn't mean it's wrong or not worth doing. Afghanistan and Iraq are only in their teething stage, and we're not done there. It's going to take a while and it won't be easy. But impossible or a joke? No.
 
Duo said:
The problem is that Al qaeda was never what the media and US gov made it appear to be, there is no such network, just people that share the same radical islamist ideology, by makin al qaeda seem like this huge giant evil monster, the US gave bin laden a great weapon against the west, in fact bin l. never used the name al qaeda only after the 9/11 bombings and that was after the US had built this hype and myth of al q. after the embassy bombings. THe biggest failure of the US was to realize that they had to fight an ideology, radical islam, instead of an evil network, and that's why the war on terror has been a failure.
Ah yes, it's the "there is no spoon" theory that's now so popular on the left. If it's such a valid theory, why didn't Kerry try this on his campaign? Because Teresa was an already enough of an embarassment?

Since there was communication and coordination between these people that shared "the same radical islamist ideology", since they have a leader, since they have organized financial support, I dare say that they're qualified to be called a network. Heck, they're almost qualified to be a labor union!

A myth doesn't leave behind a trail of rubble and bodies. Period.

This is the same crap by the same mindset which has tried to call the Holocaust a myth and the Rosenbergs "patriots".
 
bossel said:
Censport checking facts? :shock:
I can always count on you to take the high road, bossel. ;)

bossel said:
Funny, that some of the fiercest resistance originated from Fallujah, where the Baathists were not really strong.
Ever heard of relocation? They've got more than camels and donkeys for transportation, you know.

bossel said:
Could you elaborate on that? Sounds interesting.
BTW, which common sense? Yours? Then I'd have to quote the KLF: "Good night, America! We looooooove you!"
Sure, I can elaborate. Did I forget to mention Israel's airline? They use profiling to look for terrorists instead of wasting time taking Grandma's nail clippers and fondling children. But what we've got is a ridiculous random-strip-search policy and a limit on the number of arab-looking men per flight that can be questioned. What's your brilliant idea?
 
Censport said:
Article: 80% of Iraqis plan to vote
According to the IRI (International Republican Institute). Very funny!

Censport said:
the conflict is only present in four spots of Iraq and not encompassing the entire country as the wolrd media would have us believe.
Which world media? Any evidence?
Anyway, "flaring in 4 provinces" doesn't mean that there is no resistance activity at all elsewhere.


That percentage doesn't gel with the information I've been getting.
Not surprising. What about offering your sources?


Also, if it's not about retaining control, then why put yourself in the sights of a Marine sniper?
Maybe because you don't like the behaviour of said occupying force?


More like they're too corrupt. See: Oil-for-Food Scandal.
What have these countries to do with the scandal? Sources?
Anyway, Russia is a special case. As Chechnya shows Putin would be stupid enough to invade. But I doubt that he would be stupid enough to try it on Iraq.

The UN ran at the first hint of danger.
Blowing up their headquarters was a "hint of danger"?

If the UN won't stop genocide, can't prevent wars, can't or won't provide humanitarian relief, then what purpose do they serve?
The UN is an organisation of independent nations & hence restricted by what these nations are willing to contribute. For the purpose of the UN you may have a look at chapter 1 of its charter.

The UN wanted to be in Iraq to keep an eye on "American atrocities"
Good to know that you're so well-informed. That was the single purpose of the UN in Iraq? Sources?

What did he do? He got Sadat killed, that's what.
Carter was responsible for that? Sources?

the terrorists a place to die far from your citizens' homes and businesses.
& BTW US forces kill a lot of innocent citizens of another country. But, hey, they're not US Americans, so who cares?

Censport said:
Since there was communication and coordination between these people that shared "the same radical islamist ideology", since they have a leader, since they have organized financial support, I dare say that they're qualified to be called a network.
Hamas & Al-Aqsa-Brigades communicate & coordinate as well, yet they are independent organisations. Al-Qaeda may be responsible for 9/11, but that doesn't mean that they are responsible for every islamic terrorist act that happens anywhere.

A myth doesn't leave behind a trail of rubble and bodies. Period.
Yeah, but a trail of rubble & bodies can be used to create a myth.

This is the same crap by the same mindset which has tried to call the Holocaust a myth
Nice that you know at least some history, sad that you have some problems in proportionality.
 
Last edited:
Censport said:
Ever heard of relocation? They've got more than camels and donkeys for transportation, you know.
Ever heard of guerilla relying on support of the citizens? Baathists wouldn't get very much support or shelter in Fallujah, unless they & the citizens have roughly the same aims.

What's your brilliant idea?
Racial profiling is just crap. You have European islamist converts who turned terrorist, you have a lot of Mid-Easterners with middle European looks.
 

This thread has been viewed 48203 times.

Back
Top