It appears the A-Q is blowing up trains and buses to get solders out of Iraq. What is the reason for this? Does A-Q have a vested interest in keeping Iraq under a dictatorship? Many like to point out that there was no link between 9-11 and Iraq, and usually extrapolate a bit and make it terrorism and Iraq, but it appears obvious that A-Q is effected in a negative way by the liberation of Iraq.
What evidence have you that it has anything whatsoever to do with Iraq?
Al-Queda doesn’t want a stable secular government in Iraq.
he attacks are ``a response to the massacres carried out by Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan,’’
from
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aCEOpkSSfpuw&refer=germany
From http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1409548.htm
You do realise there’s no evidence that statement is from anybody connected with the attacks? And that any attack results in many claims from numerous groups?
It’s still too early. Groups often claim responsibility even if they didn’t do it. All the terrorism, none of the work!
But assuming an Islamic group is responsible, **Stuffy **got it right. That, plus they don’t want the West diddling around in the M.E.
None, and you’ll notice they didn’t lift a finger to help Saddam. I think “stable” is the key word in Stuffy’s post. If Iraq remains chaotic, they can continue to exist and operate there, damaging Iraqi secularists, Muslims they don’t like, and planning operations against the West. They’ve got a vested interest in finding a new country to operate out of safely.
Well this is true, so lets go across the channel to Spain:
from http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=031104102802
Wow. Bring up a topic, and then immediately duck it. :rolleyes:
You’re either for Saddam or you’re against him, huh? Bollocks. There are any number of reasons why Joe Terrorist is opposed to U.S./British/“coalition” interference in Iraq, and few of them have anything to do with “keeping Iraq under a dictatorship.” Dictatorship is El Presidente’s post-hoc rationalization for the war, not the be-all and end-all of the debacle named Iraq.
In the same way that “it appears obvious” the sun revolves around the earth, perhaps. In point of fact, the occupation of Iraq (we ain’t “liberated” shit, except maybe a few square blocks of downtown Baghdad where the Iraqis themselves aren’t allowed to go) is probably al Qaeda’s greatest recruiting tool ever, since it’s caused tremendous resentment against America/Britain/the “coalition” throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.
And I want to see the reasoning that shows that Iraqis will form a stable, secular government if left to their own choices.
Pardon my french, but are you kidding me. The OP still stands, what is A-Q interest in Iraq?
Yes that’s what I’m asking, why do they care about Iraq?
They see it as an opportunity to fight the West and secular Islam, kill people, and do their work.
Since its founding, Al Qaida’s stated goal has been to get all “foreign” armed forces out of the Middle East. Originally this was the American military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Now they also want American and coalition forces out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
It’s a Muslim country occupied by infidels. What’s so difficult to understand?
They don’t want the soldiers in Iraq. Having the soldiers there is seen as indicative of cotrol of an Arab nation by Western forces. They don’t want a Western nation to have control of an Arab nation.
Just guessing.
Is it under a dictatorship now? It seems you’re implying that is is, else how could it be kept under one.
Many are tired of having opportunities to do so…
Since we’re discussing Aq’s motives, it would help your case about aQ motivations if you could show where they consider the foreign coalition troops in Iraq an equivalent of liberation.
I’ve not seen anything that would suggest such. Yet my information is limited. I’m open to new info that shows aQ considers the coalition troops as liberators.
As it is, what I have come across has left me with the impression that aQ sees the coalition is instead as occupiers and themselves as liberators of sorts.
I’ve heard it said that the issue in the eyes of some in the ME isn’t liberation so much as it is justice. They don’t see themselves as slaves needing to liberated so much as they see hemselves as wronged and in need of rectifying justice.
But, like I said, I’m open to new info. So, where’d you get the idea that aQ sees coalition troops in Iraq an equivalent of liberation.
Or are we actually talking about your impressions and not aQ’s?
It is also a good ostensible goal for propaganda/recruitment purposes. Better to cast oneself as fighting policies that potential recruits are already angry about (attack on/occupation of Iraq, which easily lends itself to being spun as part of a crusade, in the original meaning, against Islam itself) than ones that they may be indifferent about or even in favour of.
So A-Q didn’t like us in Sadia Arabia, they attack the US homeland, now they also have Afganistan and Iraq occupied, it seems from this POV that their attack failed in it’s purpose, actually backfiring.
I was using our (US) terms not A-Q’s.
I did consider this, which would mean that A-Q doesn’t care a rats backside about Iraq, but they want others to think they do, I don’t buy it personally. More likely they are exaggerating their desire for forces to pull out, which means that they still do have some interest in Iraq. Perhaps a free and prosperous Iraq could threaten other ME dictatorships.
That’ll certainly hamper your quest for understanding the motivations of aQ.
Perhpas you’re not really as interested in aQ’s motivations as your seems to imply. Are you merely trying to pronounce an agitprop point?
That’ll certainly hamper your quest for understanding the motivations of aQ.
Perhaps you’re not really as interested in aQ’s motivations as your OP seems to imply.
Are you merely trying to pronounce an agitprop point?