Some of the MSM are apparently beginning to wake up regarding the presence of al-Qaeda in Iran.
Evidence that Iranian territory is being used as a base by al-Qaeda to help in terrorist operations in Iraq and elsewhere is growing, say western officials.
It is not clear how much the al-Qaeda operation, described by one official as a money and communications hub, is being tolerated or encouraged by the Iranian government, they said.
The group’s operatives, who link the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan with their disciples in Iraq, the Levant and North Africa, move with relative freedom in the country, they said.
The officials said the creation of some kind of al-Qaeda hub in Iran appears to be separate from the group of seven senior al-Qaeda figures, including Saad bin Laden, son of the group’s figurehead, that Iran is said to have detained since 2002.
A senior US official said the information had produced different assessments. “The most conservative, cautious intelligence assessment is that [the Iranian authorities] are turning a blind eye. But there are a lot of doubts about that,†he said.
A while back, I considered the economics of al-Qaeda’s troubles with The Surge in a hypothetical manner, and now the blogosphere is awakening to the possibility that we’ve turned a corner there, bolstered by the apparent desperation of Zawahiri’s recent comments.
More specifically, I postulated that IF the folks responsible for the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow had been specifically commissioned by al-Qaeda to visit atrocities upon the UK, it may signal a degredation of their capabilities. Given reports today that bin Laden personally approved the operations, this seems even more likely. Other reports indicate that al-Qaeda was suffering such losses in theater that they decided to evacuate high-value personnel (i.e. those with passports or skills permitting them easy entry into target country) in order to establish or solidify sleeper cells in targeted countries.
I am personally unhappy about the necessity for improved surveillance in the US, because I sometimes scratch my ass or adjust my testicles in public when I’m certain nobody’s watching, but considering the usefulness of the videos obtained by Scotland Yard, I don’t think that those who have attacked Lieberman have considered the facts very thoroughly–or really don’t care whether terrorists are stopped or apprehended very much.
As far as first-person reporting on the success of our recent strategies goes, I’ll simply let Yon speak:
The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,†or “tribe America.â€Â
I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people canâ€â€more or less and with giant caveatsâ€â€rely on.
Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.
Blood, sweat and tears. And, gee, what could have made them so mistrustful? Read the whole thing to find out what he knows about al-Qaeda’s role (not that Cernig or Gleen would believe him; it’s humiliating, after all). But fuck the Iraqis, anyway. We’ve got more important things to do–like score political points while the scoring’s good.
yet another liberal myth exploded.
No different than in Afghanistan – I loved the people, risked my life for them, miss a fair amount of them (yes, Kabir, Belal, Waheed, Zahir and Zarar, even General Mowlanna Sayid Khail and Zabiullah and Jaweed)- and was really damned happy to go home. I want to read Pahjwak Afghan Press about Zarar winning a peaceful election – or Kabir retiring as District Attorney in Bagram, Parwan. I don’t want to go back. I will if needs must – but mostly I want them to stand on their own feet as our friends and allies, not our dependants.
Same for Iraq, I would think my brothers in arms would say.
People forget that no small amount of Iraqi instability can be traced to Saddam’s emptying the prisons prior to the invasion. He probably wouldn’t have done that if in the main they were political prisoners sworn to bring freedom to the good people of Iraq.
What I like is how thoroughly Zawahiri removes all doubt that we are indeed fighting Al Queda in Iraq. The question to the lefties who have asserted otherwise now is if we aren’t fighting Al Queda in Iraq, then what the hell is Zawahiri babbling about?
The arguments that we should leave Iraq to focus on AQ in Afghanistan and it’s implied corollary that we’ve lost Afghanistan because we’ve wasted resources fighting in Iraq are no longer credible. We fight AQ in both Iraq and Afghanistan, period. To advocate withdrawal in Iraq is to advocate surrender to Al Queda.
yours/
peter.
If I knew how I’d nominate Micahel Yon for a Pulitzer.
It certainly would be great if these guys in the UK were their best and brightest. British law enforcement seemed to be able to deal with it. Unfortunately, I fear the enemy in Iraq is a bit more effective.
I think Dan’s point was that the terrorists moving out from Iraq were those with passports or skills permitting them easy entry into target country. It kinda makes sense that they would be more effective in Iraq since they know the terrain and can move about more freely there. People also somehow overlook the fact that, aside from whatever explicit security measures people may be taking, a great deal of human activity in the West is centered upon making it rather difficult to kill people in large numbers. There’s a substantial accretion of a degree of security simply owing to insurance markets and general litigiousness, so I’d be circumspect in naming “British law enforcement” as being central to anticipated success in thwarting terrorist attempts.
“The question to the lefties who have asserted otherwise now is if we aren’t fighting Al Queda in Iraq, then what the hell is Zawahiri babbling about?”
You said it yourself: he’s babbling.
“It kinda makes sense that they would be more effective in Iraq since they know the terrain and can move about more freely there”
They also manage to have their bombs blow up.
Well, they’re Iran’s bombs, but I see your point.
Eureka! Rejoice, my fellow Rethugs, Repugs, and Neokkkons, for shine has finally given us our trump card!
You see, the next time any lefties suggest that Iraq is a diversion from the real War on Terror, the one that they’ve all supported all along (and by volunteering to ship out to Afghanistan, natch, because they wouldn’t want to look like a bunch of chickenhawks) you can tell them that Al Qaeda’s leaders are a bunch of “babbling” fools who don’t even know what the fuck is going on outside of their caves.
Anyway, thank you, shine. I await your arguments about how we ought to re-deploy to Okinawa. Yeah.
Conventional explosives are good like that. They tend to explode when they’re supposed to.
“Anyway, thank you, shine. I await your arguments about how we ought to re-deploy to Okinawa. Yeah.”
I think people in our society babble plenty too. Okinawa and mission accomplished rank up there. But here we know the details of their actual power in the region. Zawahiri? I’m not so sure what he controls other than his own mouth.
I am not shocked or outraged that Islamist nutcases are based in Iran, going into Iraq, and even going to Europe. Iran has a combination of can’t and won’t in regards to dealing with this stuff: they are destabilizing an enemy, keeping a potential neighbor weak, and are idealogically similar. It’s much like Pakistan and the Taliban: lots of nuts on your soil, too much troublesome work to remove them completely.
Just come out and say it: you want us to invade Iran, and you think we should. I only ask for two things: enough troops and a workable fucking plan for what to do with it. If you can’t come up with those things and finish dealing with the mess we’re already in, maybe working on the next bungled occupation shouldn’t be such a high priority.
Yeah, I’m sure the sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln don’t think they accomplished their mission and suggesting that they did is babbling.
As for Murtha babbling, I’ll go along with that.
No, we shouldn’t invade Iran. But you might want to note that invading vs. a hands off approach is not an either/or proposition. There are other options.
Conceiving The United States’ Armed Services — or, in general, our presence and personnel — as a (somewhat) reliable and (undoubtedly) powerful tribe is quite interesting. As the tribal system is how they view the world, it would make sense that they would lump us as a tribe. And their view, as interesting as it may be, could be good news for us.
But the problem may arise that if they view us as a tribe, they will expect us to behave like one. And one element is that an allied tribe never abandons an ally. I hope we have enough smart people in relevant positions of authority who’ll recognize we cannot pull out until the work is done. The Iraqis, justifiably, have trust issues when it comes to The United States. This affects our reputation and clout and prestige worldwide. We need to salvage as much as we can. (And I would like to state that as much as we’d like to pull out completely, I do not think we will ever end our presence, military or otherwise, in Iraq. It might diminish considerably, but for all intents and purposes Iraq is now within The United States’ sphere of influence. We need to maintain a presence at some level so as to be able to effectively retain and protect Iraq.)
So, concerning the Iraq stuff, good news.
Now, al-QÄÂ’idah in Iran is interesting news. I wonder how the Wahhabi and anti-Shiite al-QÄÂ’idah syncs up its ideology with cooperating with the Shiite revolutionary Irani regime. After all, the founder of this regime tried to export the Shiite revolution to the Holy Peninsula (which would be as anathema to al-QÄÂ’idah as the presence of infidel forces therein). Could this lay the foundation for Sunni terrorism against the Irani regime? Potential for instability? (Although, as much as we might hate the Irani regime, funding al-QÄÂ’idah in Iran to destabilize the state would be a bad idea. Just sayin’.)
Things get interestinger and interestinger.
Thank you, Dan Collins, for the very informative post. (Posts like these remind me why I absolutely love this blog.)
I am very please, by the way, to see people here acknowledge the complexity of the Iran Question. It’s not as simple as “Invade and Conquer!” (some on the Right) or “Leave Iran Alone!” (almost all on the Left). I, for one, am completely befuddled as to what should or can be done.
It is quite a complicated issue. I would like to learn more about it through this blog – we have good, smart peoples here.
I am very please, by the way, to see people here acknowledge the complexity of the Iran Question. It’s not as simple as “Invade and Conquer!†(some on the Right) or “Leave Iran Alone!†(almost all on the Left). I, for one, am completely befuddled as to what should or can be done.
Take out a map. Start coloring in our allies and countries we have troops around Iran. The picture will spell out the “strategery” better than words.
That is more for the benifit of the lefties out there than you. They like coloring/pictures.
What TomB said, and then consider that it may be instructive to note how Iraq was dealt with between 1991 and 2003. See also the current and impending sanctions on the Iranian regime.
Seymour Hersh already knows what we plan to do. His many, totally reliable, inside the beltway, anonymous sources have already told him. Seymour, whose writing Gleen eagerly laps from the gutter, has been predicting war with Iran for more than two years much like Jason Leopold’s indictment of Rove. Seymour’s poodles like Gleen don’t seem to realize that Seymour has largely failed to get a single thing right in recent memory and fail to question him on the same use of anonymous sources for which they criticize others. Hello in there!
““It kinda makes sense that they would be more effective in Iraq since they know the terrain and can move about more freely thereâ€Â
They also manage to have their bombs blow up.”
shine unintentionally raises an issue that I haven’t seen presented or discussed.
One of the ongoing complaints of the virulent left to support their contention of terrorism as a law enforcement issue is their characterization of the latest foiled plots as being the result of “amateur hour” doofuses who can’t seem to pull off an attack without getting caught or not having their equipment work. Acknowledging the increased effectiveness of law enforcement and intelligent services I would propose an additional theory.
How about the idea that most of the really good operations and explosives jihadists are STUCK IN IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE!!!
How about that, shine? Isn’t the implication of your statement a clear support for the concept of “fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here?” While leftists bloviate about the expending of resources in those two countries they completely ignore the concept that AL QAEDA HAS TO EXPEND CONSIDERABLE SCARCE RESOURCES FIGHTING OUR TROOPS IN THOSE TWO COUNTRIES! Thus the theory is quatified and, wonderfully, those best equipped to fight those maniacs are currently engaged.
If we were to disengage in Iraq and allow the country to decend into chaos, we run the risk that some of those lunatics that get their bombs to explode may seek to find their way into our country to buttress the so called “amateurs.” While it is impossible to find hard data to support this theory, the low level of operational sophistication of the recent plots represents some empirical anecdotal evidence.
However since critical thinking is somewhat lacking from “The Narrative™” this particular idea may be overlooked.
“How about the idea that most of the really good operations and explosives jihadists are STUCK IN IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE!!!”
I don’t know if “stuck” is the right word.
“AL QAEDA HAS TO EXPEND CONSIDERABLE SCARCE RESOURCES FIGHTING OUR TROOPS IN THOSE TWO COUNTRIES! ”
Why do they ‘have to’? And are you sure it is just a single organization with a single pool of resources that we are fighting? This guy in london wasn’t motivated by what al-qaeda wants. Are you counting him in that?
Nice job ducking the central tenet of my post, shine.
Al qaeda is a loose affiliation of several radicalized ultra originalist Islamist groups dedicated to violent jihad as an expression of their religious world view. The fact that this particular guy had his own agenda related to economic and nationalistic views does not in any way devalue the original point of my comment. Perhaps the nature of recent foiled plots (British airline bombings, jet fuel pipelines at Kennedy, the Miami/Chicago bombers, the Fort Dix commandos) reflects a significantly lessened ability to recruit and place competant operatives who can maintain covert discipline and successfully carry out overseas attacks. British intelligence seems to be pretty convinced that al qaeda in Iraq had a hand in this. Maybe their best operatives are too busy ducking American Troops in those 2 hellholes and, as a result, are substantialy less available for overseas mischief.
Come on, shine! Rather than just dropping alphie/monkeyboy dollop questions, make an argument.
For once…
Oh and they “have to” because bin Laden and the rest of the greatly diminished command structure have declared Iraq to be the “crucial battlefield” against the infidel crusaders. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are spread a little thin, n’est pas?
It is if they’re dead, and many of them are.
Pablo;
Or huddled in a basement in Baqubah hoping against hope that the Americans find them before the residents.
“Maybe their best operatives are too busy ducking American Troops in those 2 hellholes and, as a result, are substantialy less available for overseas mischief.”
Or maybe their best operatives are busy actually killing where the killing is done. Its not like these are transnationally mobile capabilities. I don’t think one could operate like one does in Iraq, with those skills, in the west. Because of our civil society and law enforcement. Maybe they stay in Iraq because of comparative advantage, not because they’re “stuck.”
“Oh and they “have to†because bin Laden and the rest of the greatly diminished command structure have declared Iraq to be the “crucial battlefield†against the infidel crusaders.”
So they “have to” do what bin laden (he’s still alive?) says?
“Or maybe their best operatives are busy actually killing where the killing is done. Its not like these are transnationally mobile capabilities. I don’t think one could operate like one does in Iraq, with those skills, in the west. Because of our civil society and law enforcement. Maybe they stay in Iraq because of comparative advantage, not because they’re “stuck.—
Why not? Why is it so hard for you to see the possibilities that the very jihadists who are conducting operations against our troops could, under a situation where they have time and sanctuary, be trained and transnationally relocated to perform competant operations? You can’t argue it both ways: They are in Iraq because it’s easier to operate in Iraq but there’s no reason to be in Iraq because then they wouldn’t be in Iraq but might be someplace else, if given the opportunity.
“So they “have to†do what bin laden (he’s still alive?) says?
bin laden or any number of others in the greatly dominished command structure. What we do know is that those who have sworn their blood oaths to al qaeda make themselves under the authority of that command structure. That command structure, for the most part, wants them in Iraq and Afganistan. That leaves less time and opportunity to do the extensive training necessary to infiltrate a foreign nation. Couple that with better law enforcement AND intelligence (funny how you always leave that one out) and, yes, Iraq is more convenient.
For now…
Of course not. Remember, people like him are just “babbling” old fools.
I don’t know if “stuck†is the right word.
“stuck” is exactly the right word.
The military is there for the express purpose to kill people and break things. That is what they are doing to Al Q in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or would you rather have us back in the good old days when they were attacking us in Khobar Towers, Yemen, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the Philippines, New York, etc.?
“Or maybe their best operatives are busy actually killing where the killing is done. ”
So you agree that we are better off killing them there, where the killing is done, than here? Unless your position is that these people would go back to being bus drivers and pediatric surgeons if we weren’t in Iraq? your continued ability to argue against yourself is wuite the talent.
The wheels on the bus go round and round…
you continue to argue against yourself which is
*sigh*
I long for preview…
“Why is it so hard for you to see the possibilities that the very jihadists who are conducting operations against our troops could, under a situation where they have time and sanctuary, be trained and transnationally relocated to perform competant operations?”
I see the possibility. I also see other possibilities, which makes it hard to conclude from either of them.
“The military is there for the express purpose to kill people and break things. That is what they are doing to Al Q in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
And thats what they’re doing to us. I’m not so quick to assume thats not what they want to be doing.
“I see the possibility. I also see other possibilities, which makes it hard to conclude from either of them.”
Like what? Falafal vendor? Burka Salesman? Kite flyer? or… taking the training time to strike the infidel where it really hurts, in his own country. Zawahiri seems to think that’s the way to go, assuming they can ever develop the resources now being expended at an alarming rate in Afganistan and Iraq.
“And thats what they’re doing to us. I’m not so quick to assume thats not what they want to be doing.”
By the content of their own pronouncements that’s exactly what they want to do. They’ve publically taken a stand that the battle must be fought in Iraq and Afganistan. Unless they win that battle, recruitment is going to be a problem, what with the lack of benefits and job security.
Unless you’ve got a supportable position as to what all of these terrorists in Iraq would be doing otherwise, I stand by my original comment.
Withthat, I’m off to a picnic. I’ll check back later to see what other circular or self defeating point you’ve deigned to deposit.
And thats what they’re doing to us. I’m not so quick to assume thats not what they want to be doing.
So you would prefer they be doing the killing at a time and place of their choosing, against civilians?
How…..subtle.
“So you would prefer they be doing the killing at a time and place of their choosing, against civilians?”
I think thats what they’re doing now when they ambush us with IED’s. It’s not really up to my preference.
“Unless you’ve got a supportable position as to what all of these terrorists in Iraq would be doing otherwise, I stand by my original comment.”
They’re there because they want to be, not because we’ve got them “stuck.”
I think thats what they’re doing now when they ambush us with IED’s. It’s not really up to my preference.
Killing civilians? Our own? Do you really think they’d rather be stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of New York?
Do you really believe your own insanity, or are you just trolling?
Either way, you aren’t doing too well.
See, Mohammed Atta and company simply wanted attention. They wanted to go and fight, oh, I dunno, on the West Bank or sumthin’, but instead, got the thankless job of bombing New York City and Washington DC instead.
Hey, Jeff, any chance, based on shine’s “analysis,” you could do up one of your classic dialogues? I’d suggest one between Atta and bin Laden, with the former whining about wanting to go fight Zionists or something, and bin Laden having to persuade him really, really hard to go hit the Twin Towers instead.
Come, come, now LO. You are failing to see the inherent subtleties in this strategy.
9/11, 19 guys, a few thousand dollars for travelling expenses and flight training (and a copy of Flight Simulator), and you get 3000 casualties and billions of dollars of damage, forever changing the skyline and the mentality of the population.
2002-present, tens of thousands of guys (and gals!), millions of dollars of hard-extorted money along with weapons you’ve got to get on your knees and, ahem, “praise allah”, a few dozen times for the Iranian Imams, and you get 3000 casualties, and thousands of dead Muslims, which kinda invalidates your whole “holy war” thing.
Nuance
“See, Mohammed Atta and company simply wanted attention. They wanted to go and fight, oh, I dunno, on the West Bank or sumthin’, but instead, got the thankless job of bombing New York City and Washington DC instead.”
Why can’t they have different people with different motivations and skills?
Why can’t they have different people with different motivations and skills?
So what the hell happened to the guys with the “motivations and skills” to attack us over here?
They seemed to have dried up since we invaded.
“So what the hell happened to the guys with the “motivations and skills†to attack us over here?”
They died in a suicide attack. Someone above described al qaeda as a loose affiliation. How many of these teams you think they ever had?
BJTexas brings up a very good point indeed, one which I hesitate to articulate because it seems so inhuman: one great thing about our invasion of Iraq is precisely the explosion of Islamist militancy: whereas before we could guess and anticipate, now it is all out in the open. We now know who supports us and to what degree. Furthermore, people predisposed to militancy have effectively turned: rather than wait for later, we have them assuming their true form now. Plus, the massive movement of terrorists and terrorists-wanna-be to combat zones means a higher likelihood said terrorists and terrorists-wanna-be will be killed and out of our way. They are turning now, and we’re killing them now in battlefields of our choosing (and not, say, the skies of New York or the streets of Washington, DC). As such, the long-term effectiveness and capital and potential of Islamist militancy is wearing thin.
To be honest, when I compare the network of Islamist terrorists groups now to those shortly before and after September 11, 2001, it becomes so clear that we have already won. Not only that, but state terrorism is being taken on at a level that is unprecedented and unexpected.
But there is so much more to be done.
And our work in Iraq — though many may not see it — was and is a big part in establishing our prestige (meaning, the perception of our power).
100 plus killed today in yet another godforsaken region. Yeah, we have them pinned down, and on battlefields of our choosing. Morons. Shine won this one easy. If there’s not a book in Las Vegas already, I might have to start one.
Better in *that* g-dforsaken land than here at home.
The birth-pangs of the birth of a new society.
Were not our Leftist friends the ones who said one cannot make an omlette without breaking a few eggs? So, we’re there making omlettes!
Kirkuk is not a godforsaken region. far from it, in fact. Unfortunately, they just caught some effect from Diyala being flushed, and I imagine that strangers are having a very difficult time there as a result.
The birth of a new society that is purged and segregated. Beautiful! Bring on the cleansing! Find the cost of freedom!
Omelettes? Hell they’re scrambled beyond all comprehension.
“Someone above described al qaeda as a loose affiliation. How many of these teams you think they ever had?”
Well now I am getting confused again. Does this mean we aren’t making more terrorists by being over there?
“Hell they’re scrambled beyond all comprehension.”
Seems to be a lot of that going around.
And Pablo? You are on the ground where?
B. Moe, I’ve just about had it with your playground taunts. You’re smart, and much of what you say is worthy of consideration. But your reflexive and offhanded little rips dimisnish whatever currency that has with me and mine, for what it matters.
What else are we to do? Iraq is a fictitious entity invented by one superpower for its geopolitical interests as they existed at that time. Iraq cannot be undone, for better or for worse. The creation of a new Iraqi society will take time and, as such efforts in that region of the world are wont to be like, quite a bit of blood-letting.
And I say: there is much more blood yet to be spilled. This is simply what the stark reality is, and we had better accept it because there is nothing else we can do. This is a painful but necessary phase.
If anything, blame the power-hungry Arabs who wanted independence from the Ottomans. This is all their fault.
They died in a suicide attack. Someone above described al qaeda as a loose affiliation. How many of these teams you think they ever had?
So you are saying our “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” is working?
As mentioned above, your comment seems to invalidate the “were’re just creating more jihadists” meme. You know why? Because al Qaeda is killing innocent Muslims now. It’s hard to support a group that kills their own.
100 plus killed today in yet another godforsaken region.
But it was OK when those killed were killed or funded by Saddam?
Yeah, we have them pinned down, and on battlefields of our choosing.
Yea, and? You would prefer another 9-11?
Morons. Shine won this one easy.
Won what? This isn’t a game, as much as you seem to want it to be.
“And Pablo? You are on the ground where?”
What is that cynn? A playground taunt? An offhand chickenhawk slam? When is the last time you had anything to say but a snarly little smartass quip?
“But your reflexive and offhanded little rips dimisnish whatever currency that has with me and mine, for what it matters.”
I could care less what you think of me. You haven’t voiced an opinion of substance in months now. Get over your little pity party and start participating and maybe I will care again, but for right now you have become a nasty little creature in the corner that just spits in the general direction of the adults occasionally.
Ha, ha! I love it when I comment and leave, only to come back and see the dollops of droppings left in my absence.
Somebody needs to buy cynn a margarita and get her to chill. cynn, we reject the concept that an enemies’ ability and desire to kill innocent civilians and, to a lesser extend, our soldiers is the sole criteria for determinig success or failure. What I do note is your complete failure to attack in any way the central thesis of my comment. Declaring shine the winner without so much as an explaination doen’t exactly make you queen for a day.
Shine, you continue to argue in a circle. Re-reading your responses gives me vertigo: Are we creating more terrorists or less? Are the good ones choosing to fight in Iraq? Whether they want to be there or not the fact is their command structure has, on numerous occasions, called for the “faithful” to fight the holy war in Iraq. To me, that means, regardless of how well it may be going for them, they are “stuck” with the fight to the death. Thus, are we safer here as a result of this fight due to AQ and others “loosely affiliated” funneling their scarcer resources into the shredder?
I’ve got no hard data to support this contention but I’m beginning to gain confidence based upon shine’s roundabout nonanswers. Cynn, I know the war makes you angry but, to be blunt, I don’t care about your anger and neither does almost everybody else here. If you have an argument to make about this contention, then make it. You are certainly capable. If not, you embarrass yourself with the heet like little screed above.
“So you are saying our “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here†is working?”
Actually I think thats a joke, because the sorts of people we’re fighting there are not like the people that attacked us here. Also, britain just learned of another way that is wrong.
“Are the good ones choosing to fight in Iraq?”
I’m saying they are different.
“Also, britain just learned of another way that is wrong.”
There is a fine line between cryptic and stupid.
Actually I think thats a joke, because the sorts of people we’re fighting there are not like the people that attacked us here. Also, britain just learned of another way that is wrong.
And around we go again…
So shine, where exactly are the ones that “attacked us here”? There don’t seem to be many anymore, do there?
AQ has called for a holy war against the great satan (US) and for the past 5 years or so the best they can do is massacre themselves in incredible numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sounds like success to me.
TomB: AQ had been calling for holy war against the Great Satan for more than a decade. And they brought war to us (Khobar, embassies, Cole, etc.), but we did not take them seriously. (Recall that bin Ladin’s fatwah against The United States was well before 2001). Once we did take them seriously, their potential mysteriously evaporated to the point they have concentrated, or so it seems, on massacring other Muslims. Would you say this is an accurate assesment?
Apropos to nothing (and not that anyone cares): I reject the argument that we (however and whenever) have “created” more terrorists. The way I see it, our actions have enabled the earlier turning to terrorism of those people predisposed to terroristic tendencies: that is, they are turning earlier than later, but no new such people are being created. And better earlier than later because we can snuff them out now when they migrate to Iraq or Afghanistan rather than later, when they would likely target us at home, the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan having been thoroughly subdued.
But that’s just me ranting.
You people want to commit our soldiers to this ongoing atrocity, plug on ahead. I’m too disheartened. Once I had faith; now all I have is hope. God bless those out there who stand before us. We are alone, but I depend on our voice, as chapass as it can be. The hell with the victimist islamists; there is a whole new generation which is as twitchy as we need it it be. Hopefully, we’ll be gone then.