The “Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT” meme looks pretty absurd in light of the fact that Al Quaeda has once again exlicitly said Iraq is a front they are/were fighting on. If both sides agree that Iraq is a crucial battlefield, why should anyone listen to uninvolved third parties thousands of miles away who insist it isn’t?
Yeah, that guy is celebrating WAY too early. ObL still is very, very popular in many Muslim communities around the world. He may have had a nutty idea that jihadists are going to flock to Sudan, but that’s hardly a sign of defeat.
[quoet]Al Qaeda’s “goals”* were never achievable- the west was not going to fall, no matter how many terrorist attacks they carried out- but one could equally argue from this info.
[/QUOTE]
The fall of the west might be some very vague half-understood way out in the future goal, but I wouldn’t call it al Qaeda’s long term goal. Their long term goal is to topple the “idealogically impure” regimes ruling Muslims, kick the westerners (esp. the military) out of those countries, and resurrect the Caliphate throughout that Muslim world.
I’d be pretty surprised if they actually thought it was realistic that they would rule the entire world, although I’m sure they’d love to try. Saying the want to topple western governments isn’t really on point, though.
It’s pretty tough to characterize the Iraqi “insurgents” in a remotely monolithic fashion, an oversimpifying mistake the US propaganda machine makes repeatedly, much to our own disadvantage. The “non-Coalition combattants” in Iraq, if you will, include foreigners affilliated with, or ideologically allied with, al Qaeda, Kurdish separatists, Shia and Sunni nationalists, home-grown anti-occupation forces motivated only by the opportunity to kill Americans, petty criminals appropriating the causes of any of the above for profiteering, and probably more besides.
I fail to see how the known involvement of al Qaeda under al-Zarqawi in Iraq amounts to anything but a change in strategy to fit the times. OBL is a figurehead and a distant administrator, probably more powerful in his eventual death than presently in life. Some of the true captains of al Qaeda’s war against the US are now very busy killing Americans on Iraqi soil, instead of American soil. Iraq is simply an opportunity to fight and train for them, and whatever the outcome of the Iraqi war, they will take from that what they can and move on to the next promising set of targets. It’s difficult to see any great failure for them in the grand picture, just some recent, radical steps in their evolution from the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Presently, I’d say al Qaeda has been hugely successful in some respects, probably successful beyond their wildest dreams, in precipitating a dramatic polarization and escalation of the the age-old East vs. West, Christian/Zionist vs. Muslim struggle and turning it into a true global war. They goaded us into a fight we can’t win militarily, and yet we’ve jumped at the bait with reckless adventurism. If al Qaeda has lost some hearts and minds, how best to characterize our own efforts to “spread democracy” in the Islamic world? Whose efforts have been the bigger failure?
:rolleyes:
That’s your argument - that everyone fighting there (except us, of course) is a “beast” fighting for an evil cause. Yes, that argument is seriously out of touch with reality.
Why not answer the question I asked you? What do you think we should do, if not kill all the “beasts”? If that’s what you mean, why is saying so “demonizing the US”? What moral leg to stand on do you assert we have by comparison, in the eyes of the various Iraqi factions? Is calling people “beasts” not an act of demonization to you? :rolleyes:
It is now. We’ve *made * it one. It will continue to be one as long as we keep sending people over there to be bomb fodder.
The “meme” is that Saddam * had nothing to do with 9/11*, the purported *reason * for the “war on terror”. It’s still true, ya know.
Memes are neither true nor false. It would be best to refer to the above meme more precisely: It’s a lie.
Sorry for lack of clarity: The idea that Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots is the lie.
The main fault I see with that article is the tendency to equate all terrorists with Al Qaeda, and all insurgents with terrorists. In fact, not all of the insurgents can be categorized as “terrorists” (i.e., those who specifically target civilians), and even those insurgents who do practice terrorist methods are not all linked with Al-Qaeda. While Zarqawi links himself with Al-Qaeda, I don’t think he’s ever been as significant as some people have made him out to be. He seems to have been responsible for the more gruesome terrorists acts, namely the videotaped beheadings. But as horrible as those acts have been, the more influential elements of the insurgency are the ones laying roadside bombs and conducting drive-by assassinations. And the insurgents behind those acts (some of which are terrorist in definition, others are not) come from a wide variety of groups and causes–I suspect that only a small minority of them have been carried out by actual Al-Qaeda-allied forces.
While it’s easier to downplay the situation by portraying all the insurgents as vicious terrorists fighting against a noble, democratically-elected government, the real picture is a lot messier than that. We’ve got terrorists operating on all sides (multiple sides) of this conflict–especially in the reprisal killings, many of which appear to be carried out by Shia death squads with links to police forces, as well as by Sunni insurgents trying to foment a sectarian war.
It’s an ugly, ugly situation, which I expect will drag on for many years to come. And that, I believe, is the most optimistic assessment. If I were to advocate “extreme pessimism,” I’d be anticipating a full-blown civil war (something that certainly can’t be ruled out).
For the chronology of terrorist attacks in Egypt, this CBC article from last year provides a good time-line: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/egypt_attacks/ It does indicate that the lull in terrorist attacks between 97 and 2004 is well and truly over.
Oh, and technically, the Luxor massacre happened at Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple–she wasn’t buried there, as her real tomb was probably KV-20 in the Valley of the Kings.
No, sir, that was* not * my argument, and I’ll thank you not to twist my words.
Because it’s a pretty stupid rhetorical question.
What should we do? Continue on the present course. Civilize those beasts who are willing to be civilized, capture or kill those who aren’t. I use the word “beasts” to express the immense loathing I feel for them. And, yes, to some extent it is demonization; but unlike you, at least I am not demonizing my own people. Nothing good could possibly come out of a victory for any faction of the insurgents. Quite possibly much good could come out of a coalition victory. Not to see this is willful blindness.
The :rolleyes: is getting pretty tiresome. Try to come up with some other trick to divert attention away from the vacuity of your rhetoric.
Let’s look at them directly then, shall we?
What other interpretation is possible, pray tell?
No, it’s one that follows directly from your own statements, which you now oddly seem to disavow.
Even Ann Coulter said it better: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. "
To some extent? What greater extent is there than to deny their own humanity?
For one, I have not demonized my own people, nor would I, nor can you show where I have. For another, we’re all people on this Earth, all God’s creation and all God’s children, or didn’t they tell you that in Sunday school?
That means you not only have a definition of “victory” in mind, but consider it realistic. Okay, tell us, what would it entail, and what signs do you see of it happening? Or are the only realistic outcomes for the civil war already in progress the domination of one faction over the others?
Try to make a substantive argument and the rolleyes will stop. You get the treatment you deserve in GD; that’s the beauty of the place.
I would argue that Al Qaeda has always been a fairly marginal organization, whose minor importance and influence happened to be greatly magnified in American eyes by September 11. But this is in some ways an accident of history. It’s well known that American intelligence had the September 11 plotters in view before the fateful day, and for whatever reason, failed to act. Had they acted, there would have been no “global war on terror,” no Iraq war, and people would be like “Qaeda who? Bin Laden who?” If Al Qaeda is unable to spark risings in Egypt and Sudan now, it’s because they’ve always been impotent that way, not because they’ve suddenly lost their edge.
Smart-alec. No, seriously, thanks for correcting me. 
Oh, and I agree that to equate all terrorists with Al-Qaeda and all insurgents with terrorists is foolish, and I don’t even agree that Al Qaeda’s success is declining.
And I also think that to describe the insurgents as “beasts” is counterproductive, since it both oversimplifies and implies that all the insurgents are equal, which they are not; some are terrorists, yes, but some are fighting a legitimate guerilla war (legitimate in that it can be described as “warfare”, not in the sense that it is justified), and some are fighting for what we might regard as a reasonable cause- for example, Kurdish sepratists in the North are opposing the Shias because in their (and in most reasonable commentator’s) eyes their demand for a Kurdish state is entirely reasonable.
&
These objections make sense if you subscribe to the view that ‘It’s ok so long as it is USA doing it.’
To people who don’t subscribe to that view, the usual standard applies: That to invade another country in an act of unprovoked military aggression places the aggressor in a position of moral compromise.
You forgot to preface that with “Sean Hannity says”.
Back of the line for you!
-Joe
Only those who forget that bringing freedom to Iraq was way down the list of justifications for our invasion will argue that we have many moral legs under us. Preemptive self-defense was the main justification. And of course there is that shining moral stand, “It’s better to fight terrorism there than here.”
And no one has to demonize the United States. GW has already taken care of that in the eyes of a substantial fraction of the world’s population. I don’t believe there is anything anyone on this board can do or say that will outdo what our Decider in Chief has already done.
If thats really what you think, and there is no disction between Jihaddi extremists and other insurgents the then they HAVE won. They have acheived in Iraq what they failed to do on 9/11, they have forced to the US to the negotating table, : MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Well, you did say to feel free to correct you (even though you probably weren’t referring to that particular archaeological point–sorry, it comes from working alongside a bunch of Egyptologists). 
A good point. The PKK, while not representing all or even most Kurds, has been responsible for a large number of what must be considered terrorist acts in Turkey. Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Peshmerga militias have ensured stability in northern region of the country, although there has been significant strife between the different Kurdish parties.
In any case, it’s always dangerous to overgeneralize–not all terrorists share the same goal. While al-Qaeda envisions a Wahhabist utopia in which everyone lives under Sharia law, the Kurdish Peshmerga have advocated a secular and democratic state. Some of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for a return to Ba’athism; some of the Shia militias favor a theocratic Shia state. Of course, it’s easier to describe all terrorists simply as “evildoers,” but you overlook many of the grey areas when you do that.
Some no doubt are terrorists, some are fighters in the simmering ethnic war we’ve unleashed, and some are patriots fighting against the invaders. It is the clear duty of any patriotic Iraqi to fight the Americans.
By some of them. Plus, you’ve just labeled the occupation forces as terrorists as well, right back to the “Shock and Awe” campaign.
Given that they are there largely to spout American propaganda, one could certainly make that argument.
A puppet who outlived his usefulness; we propped him up when he was useful, and removed him when he wasn’t. We are not noble liberators; our motives are utterly corrupt.
Tell that to the women being forced into burkhas. America has always been the enemy of freedom; this is just another example.
Neither are we; we’re not in a position to criticize.
Last I heard, between 65 %-45 % of the population supported the killing of foreign troops, and less than 1 % supported the occupation.
America has demonized itself quite well.
It’s a battlefield now because we made it so; it never had anything to do with 9-11. It’s crucial because our occupation and invasion was the greatest victory Al-Quaeda has ever had; much bigger that 9-11. 9-11 was a pinprick; Iraq, a gushing wound in America.
Well, I see a reminder is in order yet again. Kids these days just can’t comprehend world events being tied to actions and events that have happened years or decades ago.
In 1991, pretty much Earth went to war against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq for not only waging an illegal and unjustified war against Kuwait (we never hear about that anymore), but also very likely setting his sights on Saudi Arabia. (Let’s forget about that pesky war with Iran. Maybe they were just feeling pissy for a decade.)
One of the big hits on GHWB is that we didn’t take Saddam out back then. And today we see the consequence of not doing so. Anyway.
There was never any formal end to the war. It was a cease-fire. Hussein broke, what, 15 UN resolutions? Something near that number? Every single one of them broken. And the resolutions were the qualifiers in maintaining the cease-fire since there was no formal end of that war.
Breaking the No-Fly Zones and shooting at Coalition planes didn’t really help them.
The point is the war never really ended. We’ve been at war since '91, with Hussein expected to do certain things (and cease doing other things) to keep the bombs from falling. He broke every rule set (by the UN, not the US) and therefore showed he wouldn’t hold to the agreement of the US not trying to take him out.
Now can you let the whole “illegal war” rhetoric go? We’ve been at war with Iraq for 15 years. What you’re griping about is the resumption of military action in the war.
See the difference?
So if the media is there to spout American propaganda (nice you’re keeping with the Marxism-thought), where the hell are you getting your info about what’s going on in Iraq? The locals? Who’s interviewing them? And who’s reporting the interviews to us?