Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general says

[Sea Demon]

This link shows the USA just might see success in Iraq after all.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-110216-1235r.htm

Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.
The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.
"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

[Skybird]

1. Put it to the stack with all the other notes.
2. Get another glass of champagne and once more salute the flag.
3. Request silence and announce with a serious voice: " Mission Accomplished II"
4. Start thinking about the release date for "Mission Accomplished III". Next US election campaign might be a good timing.

The chaos there is a self-running show now, since months. Maybe that is why they are leaving? IF they are leaving.

[STEED]

Success in Iraq not from what I have read and seen to date. :nope:

[micky1up]

its amazing how some can selectivly pick which news stories to quote and which to ignore to prove there point use your common sense if you have any! they are on there way out maybe not fully down but definatley heading out the lack of any major strike against the US shows the extent that they have been hurt skybird grow up and start thinking

[CCIP]

I have my doubts Zarqawi has been running anything of any major importance, myself. I'm fairly certain he just likes to pretend that :hmm:

As Skybird said, the thing is self-running or at least running on a very "decentralized" basis. It's not Zarqawi and his likes that they have to get rid of to succeed, but probably hundreds of small individual cells of a few people. And that is NOT by any means an easy job.

[CCIP]

they are on there way out maybe not fully down but definatley heading out the lack of any major strike against the US shows the extent that they have been hurt skybird grow up and start thinking

Strike against the US? Who said the insurgency's objectives have anything directly to do with the US?

Sorry, but the insurgency in Iraq is only indirectly aimed at the US military at best. There's only a few hundred thousand Americans on the ground in Iraq, and most of them are well-armed and ride in armored vehicles.

The push of the insurgency has been at the Iraqis themselves - why go for the smaller and far better-armed force when you can scare 30 million Iraqis into disorder and sectarian division? If even a large minority of Iraq's population starts to engage in sectarian fighting - in other words, a civil war - the US will not be able to do very much and will have to leave on their own. No matter how well US soldiers may be armed, they won't up to the task of trying to stand between a few million angry Iraqis out for each other's blood. Whether it can be stopped or not is another question.

That's how terrorism works - you try to scare people into something. And stop thinking it's always aimed at you - far from.

[micky1up]

and thats wht there limited to doing at the moment they are now incapable of exporting it to the us or uk without extreme luck being on there side

[Skybird]

The foreign insurgents, terrorists in this case, have shown no real interest since over 18 months to hit the US troops as their primary target. Their goal was sowing civil unrest, hinder the government to settle down, sow hate between Shias and sunni, and prepare the field for civil war. One year ago Konovalov and me had an argu7ment oin the question if the situation in Iraq back then alraedy was civil war. He said no, I argued that it is a preparatory phase directly leading into civil war and thus I tend to see it as part of civil war. In this regards the foreign insurgents had been successful, and the Us troops failed.

The internal insurgents are Sunni sympathizers of the old regime, and organized crime, and lastly extremists fighting for the dominance of their confessions, and here, on the Shia side, the internal insurgents again mix up with foreigners, from Iran for example. While gangsters have no idealistic goals and do kidnapping for reasons of money only, the religious "fighters" more and more are deathlocked in a.) a quest for power and dominance, and b.) taking revenge for the strikes of the other site. Both reasons are increased by the hate that had been sown between both groups by too much bloodshed. Neither Iraqi troops nor US troops have stopped the organized crime, are able to provide protection from that, or are capable to provide a minimum of stability and security so that any government could settle down and start to adress things. Not to mention that the government is deeply devided in itself and often blocks itself, and is not trusted by it's own people. And every day new assaults on the oil infrastructure costs the country billions of dollars.

there had been repeated "offensives", "brakethroughs", "decisive steps" and "hopes" after elections or constitutional assemblies that were used by defenders of the war to claim that "now", "finally", "as predicted", "without doubt", success is near. And all of these statements have shown no substance at all. Unfortunately i cannot see anything in Iraq making me think different than that this time it will be any different with this latest in a longer seqeunce of "optimistic" announcements. Just another desparate and helpless appeal to hold out and support the war, not more and not less it is. The country in in a worse situation than ever before. Claiming that there is "progress" illustrates only how big the derealization in the mind of the speaker is.

[The Avon Lady]

The country in in a worse situation than ever before.
I don't know exactly how to measure this but things were so bad under Saddam that this might not be true.

Other than that, I agree with you. I'm personally of the opinion that the US should plan on leaving in the near future, support an independent Kurdish state and let the Shi'ites and Sunnis slug it out amongst themselves.

There is one possible downside to this. Iraq is currently a magnet to myriads of Mujadin fighters. If they become unmeployed in Iraq, they will look for work elsewhere. In a certain sense, Iraq is a healthy distraction. Just a thought.

[CCIP]

There is one possible downside to this. Iraq is currently a magnet to myriads of Mujadin fighters. If they become unmeployed in Iraq, they will look for work elsewhere. In a certain sense, Iraq is a healthy distraction. Just a thought.

True. But one wonders if fighting them in Iraq, which offers these guys excellent conditions, is the best possible place to fight them.

Granted, I'm not particularly enthused about the prospect of them moving on/back to Chechnya or Palestine, but from America's perspective it's not the best scenario to have to fight them against the background of mass disorder in Iraq - where they'll hold about as much advantage as they can. :hmm:

[sonar732]

I agree that we shouldn't worry about Zarqawi and Al Qaeda as much as the unrest between Sunni's and Shiites. That is where the threat is! The number of American soldiers killed only hit peaks when they are in the prescence of Iraqi's that are targeted or a rouge IED.

What we should be worried about are the scores of Iraqi's being found shot in the head execution style by their own people.

[The Avon Lady]

I agree that we shouldn't worry about Zarqawi and Al Qaeda as much as the unrest between Sunni's and Shiites. That is where the threat is! The number of American soldiers killed only hit peaks when they are in the prescence of Iraqi's that are targeted or a rouge IED.

What we should be worried about are the scores of Iraqi's being found shot in the head execution style by their own people.
So would you be agreeable to the US announcing an exit strategy within, say, 6 months to 2 years?

According to you, leaving Iraq would resolve the problem of US casulaties and then it would be between the Iraqis to deal with their own shootings and bombings.

CCIP, what better place is there to fight them?

But again, my main opinion is that the US should leave.

[Skybird]

It is picture material and reports like this, or better: conclusions from these, that make me doubt that the Us plans to leave Iraq anytime within the next decades.

http://www.heise.de/bin/tp/issue/r4/dl-artikel2.cgi?artikelnr=22465&mode=print

The article desccribes how intense base-building in Iraq had been conducted, how far out of reach for Iraqis these bases are, and concludes that their purposes has little to do with the internal fighting in Iraq. they are not about winning the war in Iraq and beating the insurgents and protecting the country.

Such bases have emerged rapidly in recent years around all geostrategical places wi9th american interests, oil and pipelines, that is.

remember, concerning Iraq it all had been about control of the access to oil. such bases are alomost non-attackable by terrorist or partisan tactics. Now it is about controlling access to Iranian oil - probably the biggest oil reserves in the world. These bases are in very short striking distance to Iran, fighterplanes need minutes only to get there, and they are within reach of every other hotspot in the middle East. They bypass the dependence on Turkish cooperation. Why giving up Iraq as a strategical platform, when the war - the neocon strategy, that is - had been about gaining such strategical platform in the area? The long demonstrated desinterest of the US troops to engage in the country'S internal security struggle shows that their real mission is oriented towards a completely different mission that has little to do with Iraq's internal situation.

Concerning "freedom for Iraq!", the ongoing presence of foreign troops does not make sense, the troops cannot acchieve anything more and have lost the war on winning the battle for security. But concerning strategical geopolitcal planning, having combat-capable bases in Iraq - all of a sudden makes very much sense.

[The Avon Lady]

It is picture material and reports like this, or better: conclusions from these, that make me doubt that the Us plans to leave Iraq anytime within the next decades.
What should bases look like for 100 to 200 thousand land/air/sea forces in Iraq? Got any pics of what they should have been?

The US already announced last year that it would be in Iraq for several years. I read assumptions of 3 to 5 years, if I recall. Should bases have been built differently? If so, might we just be dealing with typical US military budget excesses ("We need the best for my pilots/planes/troops")?

Look at the first pic - Al Taji. Asphalt and runways. An airbase. Can you build one from recyclable cardboard?

Second pic - Balad: What are all those white rectangles? Whatever they are, they seem very tentative and portable. As for the permanent buildings surrounding the entire main center of the photo, can you tell us whether they already existed or whether the US built them?

3rd pic - Balad: what are we supposed to conclude? Is a base of this size strategically and logistically unnecessary? I simply have no idea. Do you?

4th and 5th pics - Tallil: again, what do the pics prove, especially the last one?

I'm sorry I cannot read German but I hope the article explains more than the pictures do.

[The Avon Lady]

I just noticed the footnotes in the German article. There are links to details about all these bases at Globalsecurity.org.

For example, about Balad AB (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/balad-ab.htm), it states:

Balad occupies a 25 square kilometer site and is protected by a 20 kilometers security perimeter. According to the "Gulf War Air Power Survey, there were 39 hardened aircraft shelters. At the each end of the main runway are hardened aircraft shelters knowns as "trapezoids" or "Yugos" which were build by Yugoslavian contractors some time prior to 1985.

So we now know that this "gigantic" AB was already around 20 years ago.

More:

It is the largest and busiest aerial port operation in all of Iraq. In a typical month at Balad, as much cargo and five times as many people move through there as does through Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

More:

As of Febuary 2006, Balad AB was home to about 25,000 U.S. troops.

The base is so large it has its own 'neighborhoods'. These include: 'KBR-land' (a Halliburton subsidiary company); 'CJSOTF' which is home to a special operations unit,' the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force and is surrounded by especially high walls that is, according to The Washington Post, so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside. There is a Subway sandwich shop, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges which sell an impressive array of goods, four mess halls, a minature golf course and a hospital. The base has a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH.

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, told the House Armed Services Committee in March 2004 that ". . . we are making Balad Airfield our primary hub in the region, and the idea of doing that is because we need to have the Baghdad International Airport revert to civilian control."

I'll stop over here. It seems to me that the size or materials of this airbase is indicative of prior announcements of the US' plans to remain in Iraq for several years. How much is several? I don't believe that these bases serve as any proof of the US' planning in advance to hunker down for a decade or more.

[Skybird]

The article is by the director of a Austrian centre of foreign poltical studies, arms control and security.

The pics are collected thorugh open source projects and show the state of the basis - before the americans arrived. I admit I was unprecise when saying "pics like this make me think that...". There had been pics of two of these basis short after christmas, where you could have seen how giant the defense perimeter is. The area with building may be for example 20x5 km, but the flat defense perimter around this is muczh bigger. similiar bases exist throughout the gulf region, and were errected especially after they moved out of Saudi-Arabia. so I meant "material like this in general make me think that..."

It's about the monumental size of defense perimeters. These are so huge in size, that you can cross the border of them - and still will not see the base. That way, movement trackers, infrared, and whatever kind of hightech they use already track your moevemnt down and direct defense forces to your psoiton long before you even can see the "base", or are in range of classical traditonal firarms terrorists and partisans are expected to use. Any intruder already has tripped the wires while he still cannot see anything valuable. In middle Europe, for example, such isolated places are almost unthinkable, due to the crowded population density.

You outlined the size of one base yourself. By that you give indication yourself that this is not a short-timed stay ony. There are two comprabale bases that were left afetr the Balkans war. They still are there, and are almost forgotten by the public. One is wondering why they are still operated. Isn't the Balkan war said to be over?

Similar bases exist in Afghanistan - there they also are highly unlikely to leave anytime within the next couple of years - at least.

Special attention to this:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/03/us_plans_new_ba.html#more

this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5199524-103681,00.html

and this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Where as this probably already is outdated:
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/041903_pentagon_expects_long.htm

the author of that essay also refers to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

and this:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2006/0224fightforoil.htm

And he quotes from a report http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf on the rebuilt of american defenses from the "project for an american century", date 2000 - before bush even was elected, I did not read the whole long document, but have it ony m HD since some years. The author gives these quotes from it:

[1] "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. ... Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future."

[2] "...precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

[3] At the time of publication, the authors held the following positions: Roger Barnett, U.S. Naval War College, Alvin Bernstein, National Defense University, Stephen Cambone, National Defense University, Eliot Cohen, Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Devon Gaffney Cross, Donors' Forum for International Affairs, Thomas Donnelly, Project for the New American Century, David Epstein, Office of Secretary of Defense,, Net Assessment, David Fautua, Lt. Col., U.S. Army, Dan Goure, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Donald Kagan, Yale University, Fred Kagan, U. S. Military Academy at West Point, Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Killebrew, Col., USA (Ret.), William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, Mark Lagon, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Lasswell, GAMA Corporation, I. Lewis Libby, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Phil Meilinger, U.S. Naval War College, Mackubin Owens, U.S. Naval War College, Steve Rosen, Harvard University, Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century, Abram Shulsky, The RAND Corporation, Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Barry Watts, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Paul Wolfowitz, Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corporation.

[4] "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."


Ouch, and for Konovalov :) the author even presented a link to a very good documentation on the missle-memo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Iraq would have been attacked in any case, no matter if there would have been a Saddam Hussein or not. the place is wanted because it has oil, and is an excellent and very strong geostrategical location. They went there to stay for very, very long, but for different reasons than what they told their people at home.

[The Avon Lady]

The pics are collected thorugh open source projects and show the state of the basis - before the americans arrived. I admit I was unprecise when saying "pics like this make me think that...". There had been pics of two of these basis short after christmas, where you could have seen how giant the defense perimeter is. The area with building may be for example 20x5 km, but the flat defense perimter around this is muczh bigger. similiar bases exist throughout the gulf region, and were errected especially after they moved out of Saudi-Arabia. so I meant "material like this in general make me think that..."

It's about the monumental size of defense perimeters. These are so huge in size, that you can cross the border of them - and still will not see the base.

That way, movement trackers, infrared, and whatever kind of hightech they use already track your moevemnt down and direct defense forces to your psoiton long before you even can see the "base", or are in range of classical traditonal firarms terrorists and partisans are expected to use. Any intruder already has tripped the wires while he still cannot see anything valuable. In middle Europe, for example, such isolated places are almost unthinkable, due to the crowded population density.

I would think this should be a standard in a combat zone, wouldn't you?

I can tell you that here in Israel, highly startegic bases have an immense empty perimeter around them for security purposes, in case of intrusion.

Once again, I don't see this as being indicative of a 10 or 20 year stay. This seems like simply dealing with current realities on the ground.
You outlined the size of one base yourself. By that you give indication yourself that this is not a short-timed stay ony.
What was the original size of this base when Saddam last ran it?

That was something else I outlined.

What is so dramatic about capturing an existing airbase and making it the strategic military air hub near Baghdad?
There are two comprabale bases that were left afetr the Balkans war. They still are there, and are almost forgotten by the public. One is wondering why they are still operated. Isn't the Balkan war said to be over?
Are they run by the US or by NATO?

What does this have to do with "a more permanent role in Gulf regional security"?

Could these Balkan bases simply be a way of the US/NATO maintaining airbases for general strategic purposes, without a particular exiting interest in the Balkans themselves?
Similar bases exist in Afghanistan - there they also are highly unlikely to leave anytime within the next couple of years - at least.
Again, there's nothing new here. There's still a war going on there, however, nowhere near the intensity it was at when the US initially declared war on Afghanistan.
And he quotes from a report http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf on the rebuilt of american defenses from the "project for an american century", date 2000 - before bush even was elected, I did not read the whole long document, but have it ony m HD since some years. The author gives these quotes from it:

[1] "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. ... Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future."

[2] "...precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

[3] At the time of publication, the authors held the following positions: Roger Barnett, U.S. Naval War College, Alvin Bernstein, National Defense University, Stephen Cambone, National Defense University, Eliot Cohen, Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Devon Gaffney Cross, Donors' Forum for International Affairs, Thomas Donnelly, Project for the New American Century, David Epstein, Office of Secretary of Defense,, Net Assessment, David Fautua, Lt. Col., U.S. Army, Dan Goure, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Donald Kagan, Yale University, Fred Kagan, U. S. Military Academy at West Point, Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Killebrew, Col., USA (Ret.), William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, Mark Lagon, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Lasswell, GAMA Corporation, I. Lewis Libby, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Phil Meilinger, U.S. Naval War College, Mackubin Owens, U.S. Naval War College, Steve Rosen, Harvard University, Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century, Abram Shulsky, The RAND Corporation, Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Barry Watts, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Paul Wolfowitz, Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corporation.

[4] "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."


Ouch
Again, this is not news. The US has bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Had Saddam died of natural causes and had 9/11 never occurred, those bases would still meet the definition of "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf."

Trying to assess US long-term strategies by measuring defense perimeters and by ignoring the fact that these bases were already built by the Iraqis 20 years ago and that they are in at-present hostile areas to begin indicates nothing on its own.

Does that mean the US won't be in Iraq 10 years from now? No. It just doesn't prove that they will be either.

[Skybird]

You play with the single pieces, and try to reduce the general context on meanings that do not lead beyond the single pieces. A tactic of distraction that is. You reject to put them together for a bigger picture, and harmlessly claim that is not possible. Maybe because doing so would reveal the intentions behind this that the public is wanted to be unaware of. Or because Israel directly benefits from the realization of American interests. If you can'T see that today'S realities on the ground and the current policy makin does not reflect planning that leads - at least - fifteen years into the past, I leave you alone in that innocence.

There is a saying: the whole is more than the sum of it's pieces.

[The Avon Lady]

You play with the single pieces, and try to reduce the general context on meanings that do not lead beyond the single pieces. A tactic of distraction that is. You reject to put them together for a bigger picture, and harmlessly claim that is not possible. Maybe because doing so would reveal the intentions behind this that the public is wanted to be unaware of. Or because Israel directly benefits from the realization of American interests. If you can'T see that today'S realities on the ground and the current policy makin does not reflect planning that leads - at least - fifteen years into the past, I leave you alone in that innocence.

There is a saying: the whole is more than the sum of it's pieces.
But that's my point. These single pieces alone, the airbases, are not on their own indicitive of the extent of the US' planned stay in Iraq.

And all of a sudden, you introduce Israel into this? Is this indicative of anything Skybird? The only reason I brought up Israel is to draw similarities to the physical perimeters of airbases. Or are you alluding to something more sinister?

I never said it was not possible. I said that proving the US' long term intentions through the architecture of these airbases is not ON ITS OWN proof.

Bush has 2 years left. The next president might decide to cut the US' losses and exit Iraq, which I have stated I personally think is the right thing to do. Will Bush himself change his mind? Very doubtful.

[tycho102]

Bush has 2 years left. The next president might decide to cut the US' losses and exit Iraq, which I have stated I personally think is the right thing to do. Will Bush himself change his mind? Very doubtful.

And let the Sunni and Shi'a fight it out?

I've come a little around to this mode of thinking. With an Iran'd Iraq, all the other Sunni muslims would feel the pressure of their own Shi'a majorities. The UAE and Oman, in particular. Although Saudi Arabia would feel the Shi'a pressure, as well. They'd eventually start pushing into Egypt.

Whether or not any of this improves Israel's future, I am unsure.

And I would rather support a Kurdistan than Turkey. Turkey is certainly no ally after the fall of the USSR, other than the fact they let oil piplines run to the Mediterranean.

[The Avon Lady]

Bush has 2 years left. The next president might decide to cut the US' losses and exit Iraq, which I have stated I personally think is the right thing to do. Will Bush himself change his mind? Very doubtful.
And let the Sunni and Shi'a fight it out?

I've come a little around to this mode of thinking. With an Iran'd Iraq, all the other Sunni muslims would feel the pressure of their own Shi'a majorities. The UAE and Oman, in particular. Although Saudi Arabia would feel the Shi'a pressure, as well. They'd eventually start pushing into Egypt.

Whether or not any of this improves Israel's future, I am unsure.

Until now, I was expressing my opinion with my Stars and Stripes hat on.

Switching over to my blue and white cap, nothing will be good for us. :-?
And I would rather support a Kurdistan than Turkey. Turkey is certainly no ally after the fall of the USSR, other than the fact they let oil piplines run to the Mediterranean.
I wouldn't say Turkey is not an ally altogether. I would say you cannot count on them for certain and that more Islamism and less securalism is in their future. And at some point they will no longer be an ally at all.

[kiwi_2005]

I copied paste this off a kiwi forum, theres been a big debate going on about iraq for over a year now lol. This muslim bloke goes by the name of Z0, wrote this:

osama said in reaction to 9/11:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims."

Question: Did Bin laden really say this?

[Skybird]

Who cares?

[Konovalov]

Who cares?

Still shaking off the effects of that last virtual valium are we Skybird? ;)

[kiwi_2005]

Who cares?


Huh, everyone ready to come forward and support the west theory but hey noone cares about the other. Is there some truth in what osama said then? ;)

Its was just a question.

[Skybird]

i remember that video that showed osama after 9-11 returning to some chieftain's assembly and reporting on how successful "their" strike has been, and how glorious it was. as long as noone can prove that video was a fake by the evil wicked CIA, i take it as it is. It is an admittance of guilt.

It is also allowed, if not demanded, to lie and deceive the infidels, if it is for the advantage of Islam.

So I only have one question about the stuff quoted on top: "Who cares what he says?"

[kiwi_2005]

So the west never lies

:rotfl: