News Analysis: Bipartisanship Disappears

[Heibges]

Folks talk sometimes like AL Qaeda is some company like General Motors, or like a country, or like a military organization.

Carlo's "Mini Manual for the Urban Guerilla", which every terrorist group has religiously followed for the last 30 years (thus making it one of the most translanted and reprinted books in history), spells out that the sucess of a terrorist organization depends on its almost total decentralization.

So the name Al Qaeda is kind of a banner meant to give publicity to a individuals who though closely associated by ideas and methods, have absolutely no knowledge of one anothers operation. These small groups are called cells.

When terrorist groups have been successful in the past, has been due to the Cell Leader being extremely smart and resourceful.

I'm sure there were Al Qaeda in Iraq before the United States invaded. They were probably trying to kill Saddaam. There were probably some in Libya trying to kill Qadaffi also. Muslim Extremists have always been in opposition to leaders who have been supported by the West.

Look at Anwar Saddat. He was killed not so much for signing a peace deal with Israel, but because of the large western hotels and nightclubs he allowed to be built in Cairo.

9/11 cost about $500,000 to pull off.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.

Suits me just fine. Turkey can get stuffed.
Kurdistan ("Kurdistan" just like "Palestine") is the only one worth a damn for 1000km radius.

Al-Qaeda is like the notion of a "nation". It's just convinent to have some kind of proper name to attribute the ideology. Nazis, Huns, Mongols, Conqestadors, Crusaders, Confederates, Rednecks, Xerox, Google, Coke. Al-Qaeda means "traditional Islam as it is taught in madrassahs in Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Thailand, Pakistan, India, Burma, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Chad, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Syria." But rather than say all that, we just use the term Al-Qaeda.


Destroy the kuffir in Dar al-Harb. Wait for them in every ambush. Doesn't matter if you're Sunni, Shi'a, or Wahabbi.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You know its so ironic. There was no Al Qeida in Iraq until the US invaded. An American invasion is a magnet for them. So to say that you can't leave because your very presense has created a terrorist situation is... the saddest irony.

You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.

Bravo. They call that a quagmire.

I don't buy your argument. Saddam was a worse threat than any terrorists running around. He has already sent his hit squads to try and assasinate our ex presidents, and I think he had the capability to do a ton more harm to the world than what any two bit terrorists could do.

So in summary, we made the right move. Saddam was a terrorist x 1,000,000,000,000 in capability.

-S

PS. Not to mention, he had WMD's and a ton of them.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by tycho102

Suits me just fine. Turkey can get stuffed.
Kurdistan ("Kurdistan" just like "Palestine") is the only one worth a damn for 1000km radius.
.

I really feel sorry for the Kurds.

Unfortunately, Turkey is our NATO ally so I imagine the Kurds will take it in the rump...again.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I don't buy your argument. Saddam was a worse threat than any terrorists running around. He has already sent his hit squads to try and assasinate our ex presidents, and I think he had the capability to do a ton more harm to the world than what any two bit terrorists could do.

So in summary, we made the right move. Saddam was a terrorist x 1,000,000,000,000 in capability.

-S

I don't think you can call Saddam a worse threat than global terrorism in general. There is no proof he had imminent plans to do anything. And if by taking out Saddam you effectively revitalized Al Quada by giving them a new war from which to draw recruits and polarize the Middle East then... one threat leads to a larger one. Is that ultimately a better result?

And though I would agree that Saddam was a man that should have been somehow dealt with, the way that things have ended up I would not say the right decision was made. It hasn't turned out better for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, or for the US. The US has more enemies as a result. Saddam should have been eliminated certainly, somehow. But a righteous cause does not justify any and all means, and certainly not the most beliggerent and ineffective ones: ie invasion and occupation.

PS. Not to mention, he had WMD's and a ton of them.

Don't give me that. I know AL has her thread bringing that back, but honestly. You're trying to make a square peg fit here. And nevertheless he didn't have long range ICBMs and he didn't have functional weapons of that nature either. Intent to create WMDs is not a justification for a war that couldn't be delayed by a month, as it was said back in 03.

The rush to war is precisely what caused this situation to occur.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I don't think you can call Saddam a worse threat than global terrorism in general. There is no proof he had imminent plans to do anything. And if by taking out Saddam you effectively revitalized Al Quada by giving them a new war from which to draw recruits and polarize the Middle East then... one threat leads to a larger one. Is that ultimately a better result?

Yes - he is/was a much worse threat. Global terrorism to me means nothing. What are their real capabilities? Nothing. Yeah, they may find a bomb and place it somewhere, but so what. This is nothing to what a 'state' is capable of. To me we have lost sight of what a real enemy is with this little terrorism thing.

And though I would agree that Saddam was a man that should have been somehow dealt with, the way that things have ended up I would not say the right decision was made. It hasn't turned out better for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, or for the US. The US has more enemies as a result. Saddam should have been eliminated certainly, somehow. But a righteous cause does not justify any and all means, and certainly not the most beliggerent and ineffective ones: ie invasion and occupation.

And how would you do that exactly? Besides, if nothing else, he broke the terms of the ceasefire giving the world the authorization to go in and finish him. So yes, everything was justified.

Don't give me that. I know AL has her thread bringing that back, but honestly. You're trying to make a square peg fit here. And nevertheless he didn't have long range ICBMs and he didn't have functional weapons of that nature either. Intent to create WMDs is not a justification for a war that couldn't be delayed by a month, as it was said back in 03.

It is well known that he had them. It is also well known that we know he did not destroy them all. It is also known that the weapons inspectors when they were allowed by Saddam to walk on Iraqi soil found centrifugal parts buried in scientists front yards. Where did the rest of this go? Do you think for a second that he didn't also have chemical or biological weapons somewhere? Regardless, Saddam was given a timeline and he called the bluff and lost. Simple as that. Europeans are known for stalling till all eternity on issues of war, but not the US.

The rush to war is precisely what caused this situation to occur.

No. The dismantiling of the Iraqi army after the war is what caused this situation to occur.

-S

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Yes - he is/was a much worse threat. Global terrorism to me means nothing. What are their real capabilities? Nothing. Yeah, they may find a bomb and place it somewhere, but so what. This is nothing to what a 'state' is capable of. To me we have lost sight of what a real enemy is with this little terrorism thing.

So you insist that he was a threat. Yet by eliminating him it has strengthened your alleged irrelavent threat. After Afghanistan Al Quada was effectively finished. Iraq has given it a second wind and sparked countless more groups and created the necessary outrage to support them.

And I might ask, how was he any more a threat 4 years ago than he was in 91? In 91 he was allowed to remain. In the 80s he was allowed to gas the Kurds and the US interfered with the UN's ability to confront this.

The duality of the American relationship with Iraq suggests that his presense as a threat is as dubious as his presense as an ally. Bush Sr. was attempting to make Saddam into a despotic ally all the way up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And how would you do that exactly? Besides, if nothing else, he broke the terms of the ceasefire giving the world the authorization to go in and finish him. So yes, everything was justified.

Oh I see. So he broke the deal so everything was "justified". Just because Iraq wasn't playing along doesn't mean that the only option is to turn it over and rip her government a new one. Further, all the evidence brought forward insisting that Saddam was a threat turned out to be a crock. He was not about to invade America or drop a bomb on her. There was plenty of time to find another way. Yet Bush insisted on an immediate war. Since they found no functional weapons its obvious that the impetus for immediate war was illfounded.

It is well known that he had them. It is also well known that we know he did not destroy them all. It is also known that the weapons inspectors when they were allowed by Saddam to walk on Iraqi soil found centrifugal parts buried in scientists front yards. Where did the rest of this go? Do you think for a second that he didn't also have chemical or biological weapons somewhere? Regardless, Saddam was given a timeline and he called the bluff and lost. Simple as that. Europeans are known for stalling till all eternity on issues of war, but not the US.

He 'had' them. He had them in 91. After that you can't prove anything. The weapons inspectors couldn't prove they existed and then after the invasion no functional weapons were found.

Even if the capability existed, and a few pieces of equipment in the sand is far from a Manhatan project, again I ask. Where was the immediate threat?

No. The dismantiling of the Iraqi army after the war is what caused this situation to occur.

It was but one more mistake amongst many.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

So you insist that he was a threat. Yet by eliminating him it has strengthened your alleged irrelavent threat. After Afghanistan Al Quada was effectively finished. Iraq has given it a second wind and sparked countless more groups and created the necessary outrage to support them.

And I might ask, how was he any more a threat 4 years ago than he was in 91? In 91 he was allowed to remain. In the 80s he was allowed to gas the Kurds and the US interfered with the UN's ability to confront this.

The duality of the American relationship with Iraq suggests that his presense as a threat is as dubious as his presense as an ally. Bush Sr. was attempting to make Saddam into a despotic ally all the way up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Yes, by far a worse threat becuase of a man with revenge on his mind and the pwoer of a state behind him. He should have been finished in '91 - the biggest mistake of the Western world. After this where he wasn't able to unite the two great seas together, the western world was forever his enemy. Not a smart thing to leave him in power.

By the way, read up on Saddam - you might start changing your mind. He was a little deranged - much like his sons. His master plan was very interesting.

Oh I see. So he broke the deal so everything was "justified". Just because Iraq wasn't playing along doesn't mean that the only option is to turn it over and rip her government a new one. Further, all the evidence brought forward insisting that Saddam was a threat turned out to be a crock

Please provide proof for this broad statement since he had money, and power, and the French were even supplying him weapons. To call him not a threat and Al Qeida a threat is like comparing a man with a rifle to an army.

And yes - that is how a ceasefire is written. Hmm, lets see, to win a war with the western world, you accomplish your objectives, let the Western people start to fight, surrender, and then ignore the terms of the surrender. Nice! This shows how smart Western Society really is! (sarcasm...cough...cough!). More like how dumb.

Anyway, when a country writes a ceasefire, there are rules to follow if you don't want the winning party to finish what it started and over-run your country (duh!). In Iraq's case, this included submitting to weapons inspection any time and any place. Neither rules were followed in that regard. Other rules broken include kicking out the weapons inspectors (Imagine that!), ignoring no flight rules (kurds paid heavily for this rule being broken), and even firing on American F-16's!!!! Hmm, did I miss something or did the world ignore these little tidbits and still accuse America of going into a false war? What a bunch of hypocrits! It is actually funny to listen to!

Then to top it off, Bush Sr. was an assasination target 2 times by Saddam - both failed.

So my question is, is the Western World sleeping when all this is going on?

He was not about to invade America or drop a bomb on her. There was plenty of time to find another way. Yet Bush insisted on an immediate war. Since they found no functional weapons its obvious that the impetus for immediate war was illfounded.

Quite the contrary. We did the world a favor. yes, things may be in a little chaotic in that exact region, but in time it will balance out. In the meantime, the terrorists you talk about are pro-occupied. And no, they weren't done with in Afganistan since they still are not done with - they hide across a border we are not allowed to cross!!!

By the way, Bush gave a long timeline. Basically, it is more a question of being tired with the manipulation and stall tactics. If it were Europe, it would have taken them either getting nuked or 20 years of negotiations before they relized they were even duped!

He 'had' them. He had them in 91. After that you can't prove anything. The weapons inspectors couldn't prove they existed and then after the invasion no functional weapons were found.

Even if the capability existed, and a few pieces of equipment in the sand is far from a Manhatan project, again I ask. Where was the immediate threat?

Hahahaha! That is funny! Ahh, where were the inspectors even allowed to go? Look at AL's thread even - no place like that was one inspector even allowed close to! That is a pretty naive statement.

It was but one more mistake amongst many.

How very true. Going to war and finishing it was not the mistake. It was what came after.

[Heibges]

Here's a tough one.

If the United States can launch a pre-emptive attack because we think someone threatans us, is this different between us and Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Heibges

Here's a tough one.

If the United States can launch a pre-emptive attack because we think someone threatans us, is this different between us and Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.

Oh lord. Just you wait for the answer to that one.

That whole "America doing the world a favour" attitude is exactly why everything is so messy. America isn't saving Iraq. The British did the same thing 80 years ago. They even said all the same things.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6337.htm

Santayana probably died of irony. *sigh*

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Heibges

Here's a tough one.

Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.

Total BS!

First: plural, please. Pre-emptive strikes.

Second: not pre-emptive, but first-strike. Nobody threatened al Quaeda, because almost nobody knew that it was there, and what it was.

Like in war of aggression, it was terror of aggression. Al Quaeda did not launch their war because they wanted to rescue poor old Arabia from foreign occupation back then.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Total BS!

First: plural, please. Pre-emptive strikes.

Second: not pre-emptive, but first-strike. Nobody threatened al Quaeda, because almost nobody knew that it was there, and what it was.

Like in war of aggression, it was terror of aggression. Al Quaeda did not launch their war because they wanted to rescue poor old Arabia from foreign occupation back then.

But one could argue that the last several hundred years is a constant incursion by the western world. In particular since WW1 and the constant intrusions of the British Empire.

I wouldn't say it justifies anything, but I also wouldn't say that al Quada came out of nowhere. History is alot older than just the last 2 presidential terms.

[Skybird]

Ask Mr. Bin Laden what he had on mind when "founding Al Quaeda". In the first, he was aiming not at the West, but his own corrupt Saudi government, and earlier, the Soviets in Afghanistan (where he was engaged). It's fair to say that Bin Laden was/is on a crusade himself.

One could relativize history endlessly if only going enough millenias back in time. Should I start throwing bricks at Italians because my ancestors defeated Varius's legions in the Teutoburger forest?

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ask Mr. Bin Laden what he had on mind when "founding Al Quaeda". In the first, he was aiming not at the West, but his own corrupt Saudi government, and earlier, the Soviets in Afghanistan (where he was engaged). It's fair to say that Bin Laden was/is on a crusade himself.

One could relativize history endlessly if only going enough millenias back in time. Should I start throwing bricks at Italians because my ancestors defeated Varius's legions in the Teutoburger forest?

I don't think though that the recent history of the Middle East (recent being last 100 or so years) is irrelavent.

As for bin Laden's motives, well the so called corrupt leaders of Saudi Arabia are good buddies with the current President of the USA.:hmm: Aside form that relationship they are economic Oligrchs that sell to the West and make friends there too. Then theres the fact that in one interview of bin Laden long before 9/11 he said that he intended to "make the US a shadow of its former self".

Regardless even of bin Laden's personal motives, which Im not entirely certain of, you cannot deny that a great number of the people who are joining his and similar movements do it for a more genuine angst directed at the Western world. And I would say that regardless of appearances and itentions in Iraq, the West has stepped in it again.

Read the linked article I posted above. The British in an almost identical situation 80 years ago in Iraq.

[Skybird]

I understand very well what you are after, and agree on the history of the ME. However, before that history, there was another history in the ME, and that was that of Arabs unable to deal with themselves, and before that history, another history was about the Islamic conquest. I just want to oppose any way to give an impression that Al Quaeda is kind of a resistance organization to some kind of in justice or occupation. It is not like another partisan organisation, or French resistance during WWII. It's main goal is ambitioned by religious motives. During the soviet war in Afghanistan, Bin Laden financed Afghan resistance, and went there himself to fight as well, driven away from his saudi home in disgust. He was contacted and supported by the CIA - the same CIA that helped the Pakistani secret service to recruit the now-called Taleban amongst the refugees on Pakistan soil, and equip them to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden is partially a home-made Frankenstein monster of the americans, and the Taleban almost exclusively are home-made that way. And both have shooken off the control of their former masters. In fact, the Pakistani services heavily collaborate and sympathize with the Taleban. Both Taleban and Al Quaeda have nothing to do with the history of the British of let's say a hundred years ago. They were not about the way Iraq dictatorship under the Shah had been established, or the naition being defined on the map. The main drive behind both Taleban and Al Quaeda today is - religiously motivated aggressiveness. You can explain their forming up since the Soviet Afghnaistan war, okay. But there is no need (and no realistic way) to rationalize them beyond that. They are no Arabic counterpart of ETA or IRA. Al Quaeda today is not so much an organization, it is a way of thinking - and this is what makes it so extremely dangerous. every Peter and Paul can suddenly rise from the table and think: I am Al Quaeda now, grab a bomb and move for the next city centre. Al Quaeda only is so far is a structure or organization that it sometimes is involved in financing and setting up the logistial and organizational background for real big strikes. But these are only revealing a tip of the iceberg. I am convinced that western societies are already saturated with self-declared Al Quaeda "sleepers". And I see no way how one could find and reveal them before they strike. Oh, and btgw: their main motivation, as said, is religiously. It is not caused by angst, as you called it, but hate.