Plane, knife, gun or explosive. This is what AQ does. If this beheading is our fault then all of it ever is our fault.
You can't have it both ways on this one.
Barbaric behavior doesn't win wars, it just makes your enemies more dedicated to their cause, which is why it's so important to eliminate the kind of barbarism we've recently seen at Abu Ghraib from our own side: because it just makes our enemies stronger. If we don't purge it root and branch, we've as good as lost the war. In more ways than one.
Don't statements like these from the White House now fall on deaf and uncaring ears when we, ourselves, are no better, "It shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom. They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said regarding the decapitation of Berg.
Really?
It must've been hard for McClellan not to choke on these words. It must've been even harder for Muslim nations not to laugh out loud at our own double standard.
Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that. [/B]
Naples, it doesn't help the discussion to get cute. You know as well as any of us that there were no credible links between al Qaeda and Iraq, and no reason to think they were doing business there, before the war.
Whether or not they have set up shop subsequently is anybody's guess, but I don't think you'll find anybody on these boards insisting it isn't possible.
You may recall that one of the reasons proffered by folks here abouts for not invading Iraq in the first place was the likelihood that the chaos it would cause would afford AQ an opportunity to step in.
Some are now (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)... they weren't there before the war.
Well so says you.
You are assuming that just because there is no solid intel on the presence of AQ in Iraq that they were not there.
Thing about that line of thinking is this:
I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.
But the funny thing about that is they immediately slipped in and infiltrated the citizenry, if I recall they were there before the US arrived in Bagdad.
It seems amazing how that without any real previous knowledge they blended in so quickly. They must have instinctually just where to where they would fit in. A nation that was in effect insulted by AQ and UBL just opened their arms wide to let them live among them with such short notice.
Zarqawi, who apparently was behind this beheading, was in Iraq before the war. He was the primary Iraq-al qaeda link. The problem is, he was in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, which was free of Saddam's control. In addition, we apparently had several chances to get him before the war, but decided not to. Some have suggested that perhaps we didn't take him out because it would have undermined the case for regime change.
Quote:
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone._ ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.
Man, if we didn't take this guy out due to political reasons...
You are assuming that just because there is no solid intel on the presence of AQ in Iraq that they were not there.
Thing about that line of thinking is this:
I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.
But the funny thing about that is they immediately slipped in and infiltrated the citizenry, if I recall they were there before the US arrived in Bagdad.
It seems amazing how that without any real previous knowledge they blended in so quickly. They must have instinctually just where to where they would fit in. A nation that was in effect insulted by AQ and UBL just opened their arms wide to let them live among them with such short notice.
Maybe I am missing something.
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.
No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.
I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.
No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.
I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
Wait, many on the same side you are on, bristle when you mention AQ and Iraq in the same sentence.
I have heard arguments that state that AQ wasn't even interested in the area. Those people will fight tooth and nail to prove that AQ never even stepped foot in Iraq, for whatever reason they can conjure up.
I just wonder how they set up the logistics and friendships so quickly if they were not already installed.
That new report states that there was a factory being used by AQ in June 2002. That was before the war began, no? Almost a year, by my watch. How long did it take to set up that facility for that purpose?
In order for you to accept that article your whole "no AQ Iraq link" defence must be dropped.
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.
No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.
I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
Oh yeah, that was a Ricin factory. That would be a WMD, no?
Are you suggesting that AQ is doing this because of these mistreatments?
So their statement says. Could be they are lying, but without proof I tend to believe them.
Mind you, I think this is both as low as the behaviour of the US troops and a major tactical plunder since it only serves to bolster the mindless position that all arabs are cruel, inhuman beasts, but sure looks like revenge, don't you think?
Next stop: coalition troops bombing some AlQuaida hideouts killing some innocent neighbors or something to this effect.
So their statement says. Could be they are lying, but without proof I tend to believe them.
Mind you, I think this is both as low as the behaviour of the US troops and a major tactical plunder since it only serves to bolster the mindless position that all arabs are cruel, inhuman beasts, but sure looks like revenge, don't you think?
Next stop: coalition troops bombing some AlQuaida hideouts killing some innocent neighbors or something to this effect.
They hide among civilians for protection. How do you stop that from happening?
Wait, many on the same side you are on, bristle when you mention AQ and Iraq in the same sentence.
I have heard arguments that state that AQ wasn't even interested in the area. Those people will fight tooth and nail to prove that AQ never even stepped foot in Iraq, for whatever reason they can conjure up.
I just wonder how they set up the logistics and friendships so quickly if they were not already installed.
That new report states that there was a factory being used by AQ in June 2002. That was before the war began, no? Almost a year, by my watch. How long did it take to set up that facility for that purpose?
In order for you to accept that article your whole "no AQ Iraq link" defence must be dropped.
Just because there were/are members of al Qaeda in Iraq does not mean that Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked together. There were al Qaeda in the U.S. and still may be some.... obviously there's no link between the U.S. and al Qaeda.
I may be wrong about the time period that Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, but the point is that he was not associated with Saddam. He was set up in Northern Iraq which was not even in Saddam's control. After Saddam lost control of Iraq, there were many opportunities for al Qaeda, Shiites and other groups to take advantage of the lack of control of the country. Who knows how many al Qaeda members may have entered Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's government.
Just because there were/are members of al Qaeda in Iraq does not mean that Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked together. There were al Qaeda in the U.S. and still may be some.... obviously there's no link between the U.S. and al Qaeda.
I may be wrong about the time period that Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, but the point is that he was not associated with Saddam. He was set up in Northern Iraq which was not even in Saddam's control. After Saddam lost control of Iraq, there were many opportunities for al Qaeda, Shiites and other groups to take advantage of the lack of control of the country. Who knows how many al Qaeda members may have entered Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's government.
We are talking a year or more before the war.
SH had palaces in northern Iraq. Iraq was his country, no?
I would have to say he had more control over it then say the US did or any other leader.
I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.
Maybe I am missing something.
AlQuaida despised the Baath regime, because it was not a "true islamistic" leadership. So there was no love lost between them and no ties - but of course AlQuaida agents were in Iraq to find ways to overthrow Hussein.
So, yes you are missing why they were there: as enemies of Hussein - and now as enemies of the war coalition. Don't fool yourself thinking that your enemies enemy is your friend.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
What is the difference?
Plane, knife, gun or explosive. This is what AQ does. If this beheading is our fault then all of it ever is our fault.
You can't have it both ways on this one.
Barbaric behavior doesn't win wars, it just makes your enemies more dedicated to their cause, which is why it's so important to eliminate the kind of barbarism we've recently seen at Abu Ghraib from our own side: because it just makes our enemies stronger. If we don't purge it root and branch, we've as good as lost the war. In more ways than one.
Don't statements like these from the White House now fall on deaf and uncaring ears when we, ourselves, are no better, "It shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom. They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said regarding the decapitation of Berg.
Really?
It must've been hard for McClellan not to choke on these words. It must've been even harder for Muslim nations not to laugh out loud at our own double standard.
Originally posted by sapi
Give me proof that this was done by AQ.
Mistreatments? Wow! Be nice to your friends.
Now replace AQ by USA.
And tell us to how to get out of vicious cycle.
I suppose that killing an innocent person by way of BEHEADING is a expiation for the acts in the prison?
So now that AQ and the islamofascist community have made it equal, they are gonna stop the killings, right?
Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that.
Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that. [/B]
Naples, it doesn't help the discussion to get cute. You know as well as any of us that there were no credible links between al Qaeda and Iraq, and no reason to think they were doing business there, before the war.
Whether or not they have set up shop subsequently is anybody's guess, but I don't think you'll find anybody on these boards insisting it isn't possible.
You may recall that one of the reasons proffered by folks here abouts for not invading Iraq in the first place was the likelihood that the chaos it would cause would afford AQ an opportunity to step in.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that.
Some are now (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)... they weren't there before the war.
Originally posted by Akumulator
Some are now (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)... they weren't there before the war.
Well so says you.
You are assuming that just because there is no solid intel on the presence of AQ in Iraq that they were not there.
Thing about that line of thinking is this:
I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.
But the funny thing about that is they immediately slipped in and infiltrated the citizenry, if I recall they were there before the US arrived in Bagdad.
It seems amazing how that without any real previous knowledge they blended in so quickly. They must have instinctually just where to where they would fit in. A nation that was in effect insulted by AQ and UBL just opened their arms wide to let them live among them with such short notice.
Maybe I am missing something.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi?s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late ? Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone._ ?Here?s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we?re suffering as a result inside Iraq,? Cressey added.
Man, if we didn't take this guy out due to political reasons...
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well so says you.
You are assuming that just because there is no solid intel on the presence of AQ in Iraq that they were not there.
Thing about that line of thinking is this:
I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.
But the funny thing about that is they immediately slipped in and infiltrated the citizenry, if I recall they were there before the US arrived in Bagdad.
It seems amazing how that without any real previous knowledge they blended in so quickly. They must have instinctually just where to where they would fit in. A nation that was in effect insulted by AQ and UBL just opened their arms wide to let them live among them with such short notice.
Maybe I am missing something.
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.
No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.
I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
Originally posted by addabox
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.
No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.
I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
Wait, many on the same side you are on, bristle when you mention AQ and Iraq in the same sentence.
I have heard arguments that state that AQ wasn't even interested in the area. Those people will fight tooth and nail to prove that AQ never even stepped foot in Iraq, for whatever reason they can conjure up.
I just wonder how they set up the logistics and friendships so quickly if they were not already installed.
That new report states that there was a factory being used by AQ in June 2002. That was before the war began, no? Almost a year, by my watch. How long did it take to set up that facility for that purpose?
In order for you to accept that article your whole "no AQ Iraq link" defence must be dropped.
Sounds like a pickle.
Originally posted by addabox
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.
No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.
I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
Oh yeah, that was a Ricin factory. That would be a WMD, no?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you suggesting that AQ is doing this because of these mistreatments?
So their statement says. Could be they are lying, but without proof I tend to believe them.
Mind you, I think this is both as low as the behaviour of the US troops and a major tactical plunder since it only serves to bolster the mindless position that all arabs are cruel, inhuman beasts, but sure looks like revenge, don't you think?
Next stop: coalition troops bombing some AlQuaida hideouts killing some innocent neighbors or something to this effect.
Originally posted by Smircle
So their statement says. Could be they are lying, but without proof I tend to believe them.
Mind you, I think this is both as low as the behaviour of the US troops and a major tactical plunder since it only serves to bolster the mindless position that all arabs are cruel, inhuman beasts, but sure looks like revenge, don't you think?
Next stop: coalition troops bombing some AlQuaida hideouts killing some innocent neighbors or something to this effect.
They hide among civilians for protection. How do you stop that from happening?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wait, many on the same side you are on, bristle when you mention AQ and Iraq in the same sentence.
I have heard arguments that state that AQ wasn't even interested in the area. Those people will fight tooth and nail to prove that AQ never even stepped foot in Iraq, for whatever reason they can conjure up.
I just wonder how they set up the logistics and friendships so quickly if they were not already installed.
That new report states that there was a factory being used by AQ in June 2002. That was before the war began, no? Almost a year, by my watch. How long did it take to set up that facility for that purpose?
In order for you to accept that article your whole "no AQ Iraq link" defence must be dropped.
Sounds like a pickle.
New report?
I may be wrong about the time period that Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, but the point is that he was not associated with Saddam. He was set up in Northern Iraq which was not even in Saddam's control. After Saddam lost control of Iraq, there were many opportunities for al Qaeda, Shiites and other groups to take advantage of the lack of control of the country. Who knows how many al Qaeda members may have entered Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's government.
Originally posted by addabox
New report?
Yep, it was posted earlier in this thread.
Are you paying attention?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yep, it was posted earlier in this thread.
Are you paying attention?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Updated: 7:14 p.m._ET March_ 02, 2004
are you?
Originally posted by Akumulator
Just because there were/are members of al Qaeda in Iraq does not mean that Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked together. There were al Qaeda in the U.S. and still may be some.... obviously there's no link between the U.S. and al Qaeda.
I may be wrong about the time period that Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, but the point is that he was not associated with Saddam. He was set up in Northern Iraq which was not even in Saddam's control. After Saddam lost control of Iraq, there were many opportunities for al Qaeda, Shiites and other groups to take advantage of the lack of control of the country. Who knows how many al Qaeda members may have entered Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's government.
We are talking a year or more before the war.
SH had palaces in northern Iraq. Iraq was his country, no?
I would have to say he had more control over it then say the US did or any other leader.
That argument is pretty weak. IMO
Originally posted by NaplesX
We are talking a year or more before the war.
SH had palaces in northern Iraq. Iraq was his country, no?
I would have to say he had more control over it then say the US did or any other leader.
That argument is pretty weak. IMO
Saddam didn't have control of Northern Iraq since the first Gulf War.
Originally posted by Akumulator
Saddam didn't have control of Northern Iraq since the first Gulf War.
Who did, then?
Why do we call it northern IRAQ?
I am going to find a map and post it so we all can see where this was.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.
Maybe I am missing something.
AlQuaida despised the Baath regime, because it was not a "true islamistic" leadership. So there was no love lost between them and no ties - but of course AlQuaida agents were in Iraq to find ways to overthrow Hussein.
So, yes you are missing why they were there: as enemies of Hussein - and now as enemies of the war coalition. Don't fool yourself thinking that your enemies enemy is your friend.
Who did, then?
Why do we call it northern IRAQ?
I am going to find a map and post it so we all can see where this was.
Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq