Say, gum, lovely pom-poms you wave.
Thanks for your brilliant input.
Assuming for the moment that al-Queda is really behind this, do you think the London bombings were in furtherance of the same strategy as 9/11?
Regards,
Shodan
Say, RedFury, You’re very welcome. (o)::shaking my pom-poms::(o)
You obviously live in an alternate universe if you think this is untrue. “A great number of Muslims” are being taught and have been taught that Westerners are the Enemy, and being similar to ourselves, grow up believing it for that that reason alone.
To suggest that the U.K. should modify its behaviour in any way other than becoming more aggressive in their search for terrorists is simply naive. It’s simple common sense to understand that giving them what they want only encourages them to continue to use the same tactics.
Does anyone really believe that if all the Western powers pulled out of the Middle East completely that everything would be hunky-dorey? Didn’t we learn anything from our previous attempts at isolationism and neutrality?
From your link:
Not surprinsingly, I agree w/Mr Galloway and reject the Party line – the same one that lied over and over and over again.
So says the hapless crew that ignored the good evidence on Iraq on the way to war. Notice too that this conclusion is coming from the same crew that failed to prevent this attract.
And then you go invade a country and kills thousands for no reason, thus fueling and giving reason to those every sentiments.
Nicely done.
One more time with feeling: how’s it working out for you now?
Welcome to the reality based community.
Can’t answer for anyone else, but I doubt it. Terrorism has been with us in one form or another since the beggining of human history. The debate is not how to go about eliminating it completely for that is little more than a pipe-dream that your Dear Misleader likes to sell, but rather of picking an effective policy to control this particular scourge. With your current actions you’ve been fanning the flames and killing, literally, a countless number of innocent people.
John Wayne would not approve.
Again, that quote in full, from the same link:
He doesn’t know whether or not there is a connection. That’s it.
I’ve already corrected your out-of-context quote on another thrread; I’m surprised to see you doing it again.
Well, judging by this Poll in the Telegraph, it would seem that the bombings didn’t have quite the effect that al-Qaida was hoping for:
I arrived to the conclusion, for a long time now, that Al-Qaida does want the USA and England to remain in Iraq.
Interesting.
I’m serious.
Could you tell why you think that?
What would be the gain for aQ?
Considering this:
From a Congressional Research Service report – Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology:
Quote:
Overall, Bin Laden’s statements from the mid-1990s through the present indicate that he continues to see himself and his followers as the vanguard of an international Islamic movement primarily committed to ending U.S. “interference” in the affairs of Islamic countries and supportive of efforts to overturn and recast Islamic societies according to narrow Salafist interpretations of Islam and Islamic law.
?
aQ does not give a damn about Iraqis, (themselves victims of many attracts) what it counts for aQ is to keeps us bog down in Iraq, there was intelligence (ignored by many in England and the US) that Osama was opposed to the secular nature of Saddam’s Iraq, of course they do eventually want the US and the UK out from the ME, but I am afraid that now aQ is trying to get the US and the UK into a worse situation, right now it is mostly aQ the ones that are organizing this, as long as we are not sending overwhelming force or resources to seek aQ elsewere, is in thie interests of aQ to play on the preconceptions of the majority of the public that still misleadingly think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
aQ is counting in what I fear will happen next: that what is now mostly a rebellion made in large part of aQ members, will turn into a nationalistic based one. Very likely to happen if we don’t give the control of resources like oil back to the Iraqi people, control that just by an unfathomable coincidence is benefiting mostly the companies of the countries supporting this distraction on the war against terror.
But not Spain or Italy? Are they such evil geniuses that they can use bombs like surgical instruments, cutting coalitions apart and stitching them together in the mold that they want?
Do they deserve that much credit? Or is this just a way for you to fit the result of the attacks into your narrative, which is Iraq war bad, Bush bad, Blair bad?
You really believe al-Qaida wants the U.S. in Iraq? This is why they’re fighting so hard there to get rid of them? You really think they want an endless battle betwee themselves and the U.S. army - a battle in which they lose people in about a 20:1 ratio over the military?
Now you are ignoring what kind of foe we are fighting here Sam, these are fanatics, they do love those numbers since they believe they are going to party on with 70 virgins.
And yes, in that context, they do indeed want an endless battle, but even on that, they do know that sooner or later we will leave; once again, they do not care about what remains in Iraq, what is important is that weak governments like Musfarrat in Pakistan are not taken to task since we are bogged down elsewhere pretending to the American people and the British one that we are doing something against the TWAT in Iraq.
AQ is counting on a future Iraqi government that will be more sympathetic to their point of view, they are deluded of course, but it is to our peril to ignore the delusions the terrorists are working with.
Those points are well taken, but it’s a far cry from that to wanting the U.S. military en masse in the heart of the middle east.
Frankly, I think the last couple of years have been a disaster for al-Qaida. The hated enemy is now in the heart of the middle east, Libya has renounced terrorism and given up its WMD, Syria has pulled out of Lebanon, the Palestinians have moderated, Afghanistan has a democracy, and the other governments in the region are beginning waver and weaken.
I do not believe Osama Bin Laden is cackling gleefully, “Those fool Americans have fallen in my trap!” I think it’s more like, 'Holy shit, this isn’t working the way I thought it would."
The reason that al-Qaida is pouring into Iraq now is because they HAVE to win there. Not because they’re in their jihadist glory, but because they need to make a desperate stand or they may LOSE. If Iraq becomes democratic and peaceful, it throws Bin Laden’s entire narrative in the toilet. Muslims will have a path out of despair and poverty that doesn’t involve strapping on a suicide belt. And if Iraq becomes peaceful and democratic and the U.S. goes home as promised, Iraq will become an ally. That’s a big deal.
Do I really have to point out that those conclusions are based on now proven shaky intelligence?
Sam, like you mentioned in another thread regarding Iraq: In Iraq there was secularism, corruption and western decadence (children flying kites! the horror!) The only missing piece was democracy. But taking all the other items into account, Osama already hated the guts of Saddam. Unfortunately, besides democracy, now we add to the mix the occupation of Iraq by foreign forces, it is now easier (in AQ point of view) to turn this situation from a fanatical movement to a nationalistic rebellion, ignoring that Osama is changing tactics on the way to a sick goal is the danger here.
And as a fanatic, I don’t think he considers what he is doing a failure, I also think that he is a failure, but we are indeed falling in his trap, I think we will get out of it and get Osama and AQ eventually, but we should have done that sooner. The whole point of Iraq now is to keep us out from sending more pressure their way.
You CAN’T ‘get’ al-Qaida. It’s not an army with a fixed address. It’s a collection of independent cells throughout the world. Most of them don’t even know of the existence of the other cells. They’re no ‘Mr. Big’ you can get that will bring down the entire network. Osama Bin Laden may not even be particularly involved at this point, and getting him certainly won’t be the end of al-Qaida. It may, in fact, turn him into a martyr and make the problem worse.
You can’t ‘win’ the war on terror. All you can do is make sure terrorists don’t get access to the power of a state, and change conditions in a way that makes people turn away from terror as a career choice. Democratizing the middle east is a good step towards both goals. But there are still immense challenges. Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea are all potential intersection points for terrorists and states, as is Saudi Arabia.
We can live with terror so long as it’s the occasional bombing that kills a dozen people. We cannot live with terror in a world where terrorists may gain access to radiological materials, chemical and biological weapons, and hundreds of millions of dollars from state coffers.
Now you are just repeating the kool aid song here. (Yes, I now it was really flavor aid) democratizing the Middle East was not the priority for this sorry administration, and there is indeed danger of terrorists obtaining WMD elsewhere, but that was not Iraq. We will then continue wasting resourses there. And the crickets are chirping on the road of democratizing Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
The funny thing is that Iran is more democratic than anything else you mentioned.
The funny thing is that you think Iran is even remotely democratic.