http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040125/ts_nm/iraq_sanchez_insurgents_dc
This is what I have been afraid of since the our Fearless Leader decided to invade Iraq. Saddam was an “evil doer”, but at least we knew what we were dealing with, and that he wasn’t linked with Al Qaeda and he was containable. Now, just as many critics had predicted, Iraq is becoming a haven for terrorists. This is is going to keep getting uglier and uglier. Wait until the inevitable civil war.
If I thought any of your assertions in the OP were wrong—and God, how I wish I could think your assertions were wrong—then I’d debate you.
Sadly, I don’t think we’re going to be seeing a lot of debate on this.
If it’s any consolation, I challenge you on the adequacy of your link: I can’t get it to work.
The link works if you cut and paste rather than click on it, dunno what that’s all about!
Also can’t see much of a debate, especially as the report mainly contains speculation rather than hard evidence.
Actually, there should be a lot of debate on this. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam, though not carved in stone or kept in the Library of Congress, have been documented going back for years. Al Qaeda plans on destroying the US and its civilians “anywhere” they can find us. That used to be New York, Saudi, Yemen, Africa, Turkey, etc. Now it’s mostly Iraq, and the attacks are decreasing. I’d call that an improvement.
Al Qaeda has been active all over the ME for over a decade. What world are you analyzing? What part of they recruit from everywhere is a problem?
I guess some people think that there is some way to stop al Qaeda without killing all the rat bastards that are in it. Sorry. Moreover, the membership is fluid. The call is to “all Muslims”. This fight will last for decades, or we will lose.
Negotiations or pacifism just means we lose quicker.
Beagle: The links between al Qaeda and Saddam, though not carved in stone or kept in the Library of Congress, have been documented going back for years.
Cite?
Al Qaeda plans on destroying the US and its civilians “anywhere” they can find us. That used to be New York, Saudi, Yemen, Africa, Turkey, etc. Now it’s mostly Iraq, and the attacks are decreasing.
Er, there was a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia about ten weeks ago that has been strongly linked to al-Qaeda, and ones in Turkey even more recently. On what grounds are you assuming that the US occupation of Iraq is somehow containing or weakening al-Qaeda?
Well. Kimstu has beat me to my first two questions so I’ll settle for:
Is this just really badly phrased or are you advocating a general war on Islam?
Sorry the link didn’t work. First time I have tried doing so here.
I certainly acknowledge and understand that Al Qaeda has been a significant player in the Middle East for years. It would be extremely naive to think otherwise. However, Iraq represented a threat in an entirely different manner which we had pretty well contained for a decade. The problem is that by creating the anarchy and recipe for civil war, the two threats have essentially merged.
Prior to our invasion we already had a lot on our plate militarily with Afghanistan and diplomatically with North Korea, Pakistan, Israel and India. We spread ourselves way too thin by taking on Iraq and investing so many resources there as well.
I don’t think that by acknowledging this very serious problem I am being pacifistic. I am being realistic. I have no doubts that what we did in Afghanistan was right and just. On the other hand, I think our Iraq policies have been extremely short sighted and dangerous. Instead of cleaning out the terrorists, we have given them a new playground where they can attack our soldiers in their own back yard.
Actually, they have only been created in the last 2 1/2 years, usually by falsely asserting links that did not exist or by deliberately misrepresenting facts in ways that distorted their meaning.
Our two “biggest” claims for an al Quaida/Iraq link were that one terrorist who had been known to visit friends of bin Laden (but who has continued to act separately from bin Laden and has never participated in an al Qaida operation) visited Iraq for medical treatment, then left, and that there was an al Qaida training camp in the north of Iraq (while the administration carefully omitted that the group was on the Ba’ath party’s hit list, but that the neither the Iraqi army nor the Fedayeen could get at the camp because it was in the Northern zone protected by U.S. airpower).
New sig. check.
Of course. Before the war, those terrorists were called “Saddam’s soldiers”. A rose by any other name… and all that.
In any case, I fail to see what the OP’s point is. Bush himself said that the operation wouldn’t be quick or easy… and now his opponents are criticizing him because the operation hasn’t been quick or easy? What’s up with that?
Sorry Beagle, but there’s nothing new or persuasive there. We’ve known for a long time that some al-Qaeda operatives sometimes visited Iraq, and that they had dealings with some Iraqis, and that some defectors claimed a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. That is not the same as hard evidence that Saddam Hussein’s government was supporting or sponsoring terrorist acts by al-Qaeda.
If this kind of contact between terrorist operatives and a foreign country is all it takes to justify, or require, invading and occupying that country, we’d have to invade dozens of them. It is simply not an adequate excuse for armed attack to say “well, we know you’ve had members of al-Qaeda in your country from time to time.”
Spoofe: Really? Is that why Bush looked like death warmed over when he had to announce the request for the 87 bil? Is that why the rotation of troops is going to be so risky? Does this sound like people who planned well in advance for something, or like people who have been forced into a risky position:
From U.S. plans boost in security during troop rotation
You don’t honestly believe that the above risky scenario was planned for before the war, do you? Looks to me like the guerrillas have forced the hand of the US. Whether they’re smart enough to take advantage of it is something we’ll just have to wait and see about. Still, I don’t see how you can argue that the Bush Admin anticipated a guerrilla war still going on a year later given the above.
Very enlightening. Thanks, Beagle, I had no idea Hezbollah didn’t like America. :rolleyes:
ObL’s on record many times saying Saddam was “a bad Muslim” who oppressed the Iraqi people – ain’t much worse in ObL’s world than that. He hated Saddam and what he stood for.
Also, a-Q are on record as being in northern Iraq in increasing numbers and effect from the time the US went into Afghanistan, but they were there seizing land from Saddam within the northern no-fly zone – they and Saddam’s forces were fighting each other for control, enemies not allies.
I hope I’m just reminding people, you need cites for this stuff ?
No, the administration never promised that it would be quick and easy. It was well documented, however, that they thought that our forces would be greeted as liberators, and not thought of as occupiers. They thought the rebuilding would be much, much easier than it has been. They completely failed to grasp the complexity and scope of bringing democracy to whom democracy is a completely foreign concept.
Now, instead of the signs of democracy we are seeing the signs of civil war. I’m not criticizing because this war hasn’t been quick and easy. I’m criticizing because it was started under false pretenses, and it was started without a real plan on how rebuild and get out. A “long, hard slog” indeed.
This is funny… I mean. Taking a quote spread on the internet as your signature.
Like this one :
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
George W. Bush after stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001, quoted from Jonathan Lyons, "Bush enters Mideast’s rhetorical minefield " (Reuters: September 21, 2001).
Ot this one, since we are in (once again) an “Iraq” thread:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them
George W. Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa June, 2003), quoted from Arnon Regular, “‘Road map is a life saver for us,’ PM Abbas tells Hamas” (Haaretz.com:June 27, 2003), quoted from EvilOz (The Iterative Record)
Or this one:
There ought to be limits to freedom.
George W. Bush, complaining about a website critical of him, at an Austin Press Conference, May 21, 1999.
We should transmit that one directly to Iraq for those overthere who don’t know it yet.
Hero Bush was indeed very busy “solving” the “problem” in the Middle East by performing some massmurdering and as side-effect creating the most explosive instable situation it has known since decades.
I’m almost crushed by my feelings of sheer admiration.
And for answering some of the - predictable - comments on the OP:
Sorry, but OBL and Hussein are no buddies and never were buddies.
Sorry but everyone who sets off a bomb these days and wants to name that an AQ attack is free to do so. And many like to do it for some reason…wonder why…
Sorry, but the USA visibly has still no idea who or what they are dealing with. AQ is of course a good scapegoat these days if you have no clue of the reality about what is really going on in a nation you invaded and occupy.
Salaam. A
Well, it does a good job of demonstrating my point.
An operative of al Qaida describes meetings with the Iraqis as “successful.” But the meetings he describes have been identified by the CIA as resulting in no exchange of information or materiel.
Colin Powell describes several al Qaida fugitives and operations and going to or coming from “Iraq,” carefully not mentioning that they were going to and coming from camps in the North forbidden to the Iraq military or intelligence agencies.
(This is the same Colin Powell who has, like a good soldier, reported the administration message that Iraq was buying weapons grade nuclear materials.)
The link that TCS attributes to Jane’s that Iraq’s Salah Suleiman was exchanging information with al Qaida’s Ayman al Zawahiri is from a single speculative report just following the WTC/Pentagon attacks. It has never been confirmed by any intelligence organization and it has never been repeated by Jane’s.
The rest of the reports are along the lines of “some low-level mule claims he once worked with some bad guy” without any substantiation. The International Action Organization addresses several of the claims that have been made about the Iraq - al Qaida “connection” including some of the “reports” issued by Mr. Powell.
Hey, not arguing, just relieved. Can you imagine a-Q taking over a country that once had a WMD program and the infrastucture and army to project destruction under the umbrella of sovereignty ?