Originally posted by NaplesX
Your points fall mute...
Here is why:
1) According to many here (and you I think), AQ had no interest in Iraq. They were everywhere else in the world but not in Iraq. They were in NY and FL but not in Iraq. No, there is no proof of that and therefor they could not have been there. Iraq was a secular government and AQ is a radical religious movement - highly incompatible, no? UBL hated SH, right?
So why would AQ care if the US attacked Iraq? Unless maybe they are just looking for excuses to kill, which bring me to...
2) Russia. Weren't they one of the big boys along with france that opposed the invasion of Iraq, for many different reasons? Yes that is right. Now islamic terrorists have attacked children at school in that country. Wouldn't they want to NOT attack a country that has helped them?
Russia did everything that AQ could have asked, without helping them directly, and yet the school thing happened anyway. Opposing the war did not protect them from islamic fundamentalist rage. There should be a lesson in there somewhere.
AQ will recruit regardless of the blunders that you seem to cling to. Even if President Bush made the right decisions (according to you) on these issues there would still be more recruiting points for the likes of AQ, for other blunders as they see them.
If Kerry is elected he will face the same issue: appease or stand tall. You can't appease evil. Pure and simple.
This answer misses the point entirely.
I am not talking about the growth of AQ inside Iraq. That was what Bush was hoping for, remember the 'lightning rod theory' amd the 'bring-it-on' . . . . (which, unfortunately, was then 'brought on' to over 1000 fine American soldier deaths).
People in the Middle East are very proud of their religion, their ethics and their rich history . . . the 'countries' that devide them are sometimes seen as merely artificial divisions put into place by ex-Colonial rulers . . . .
AQ says just that . . . they also say that what 'Mulsims' should recognize is that the US really wants to destroy Islam and/or simply take its possessions, and/or, expand Zionism to include much much more of the ME . . .
So, what happens to dissaffected or educated but not national individuals who identify themselves vaguely as 'Muslims' before they identify themselves with 'Syria' or 'Jordan' or etc, when it looks, for all intents and purposes, that the US invaded a country on false premises?
What message does that send to people who are feeling like they need an identity?
well, for many it answers a need complete with a story provided by BOTH Osama Bin Laden and GWBush . . . . the identity is 'Muslim for a larger Islamistan against the Crusading infidel devils'
Any moron could have seen this would be the response, Muslims are proud of their heritage and who they are . . . and pride can be a very easy to manipulate wedge that will pry open a person's alliegences . . . making someone forget reasonable thought and join up for the most foolhardy of causes: AKA: Al Queda . . .
as far as Russia . . . I will assume that you only now have followed what has been going on there:
Russia has been very lax in their security against an enemy that is ruthless and vicious.
BUT, if you know anything about how the conflict started and grew into the monster that it quickly became, you would see in it a serious ressemblance to what we are doing in Iraq.
Chechneya started out as a relatively peaceful seperatist/nationalist movement. Russia used extremely harsh military force to deny any form of autonomy for Chechens . . . Chechens fought back.
But Russians continued to fight with an absolute disregard for civilians, their army is/was completely corrupt.
Nightcrawler may be an extremist troll but he is right about his story of the Russian military in Chechneya: they kidnap on mass, they kill and torture and they simply level whole cities . . . there is virtually no respectable chain of command, and they are paid better through the Black market and crime than through state wages . . . these are all recipes for a disasterous war . . . and that is exacctly what they got . . . terribly executed, aimless, incredibly brutal and corrupt and seemingly interminable . .
So what hapened to the moderate Chechen seperatists?: they quickly became over-run by 'mujahadeen' and foriegn extremist fundamentalists . . . I remember before 911
reading about how the moderates thought that the foriegners were making it impossible for there every to be a resolution and perpetuating the brutality . . . and it continues today:
Moral of the story: take a situation where overt force-only scenerio will make things worse then that is exactly what will happen
Work with or against your enemy through diplomacy and tactful 'winning of hearts and minds' and nobody needs to find the extremist thugs make any sense
Kill the extremist thugs before they make a case for your viciousness to more moderate minds, and thereby they 'win the hearts and minds' of others first.
Russia went into a moderate scenario with fists of red-meaty mutton and they made a not necessarily-horrendous situation turn into this miasma of extremist murderers and Pan-Arab fundamentalists that will probably now only grow.
BTW: the US has recommended to Putin that he sit down and talk with the seperatists (who are not necessarily the extremists) and he lashed out incredibly harshly, with a brilliant sarcastic jab at the hypocrisy of the US with this regardkudos to anyone who can find that retort and copy it here