This is the form of cooperation has been created by Mr. Bush.
But of course the pro-war nuts who've never lived in an environment more multinational than the local taco stand are going to be screeaming, "See! They're working in collusion!"
I suspect we'll learn more as the operation continues. One this is for certain--this will be terrible PR for those advocating that Iraq/Al Qaeda have nothing to do with one another, as their collaboration at this point makes them complicit.
I doubt it would go that far, but that is the thrust. Any terrorist or those who harbor terrorists...and if they are so conveinent as to bunch up in one country like Iraq, so much the better for the operation.
I think you are being extreme, to make a point, but that is the heart of the doctrine Bush is pushing.
This is the form of cooperation that has been created by Mr. Bush.
Yeah, that's right, it must have been caused by the war on Iraq.
Funny, every liberal on this board for months spewed on about how there coundn't even be a real link between Bin laden and Saddam because the Baath party and Iraq were secular and Al Qaeda and Bin laden were so fundamentalist...that they hated each other too much to cooperate.
As soon a link might be established they now yell 'they are only together because of Bush and the war'.
So, before it was impossible, but now they can try and blame it on Bush (as now all things can be appearantly, because of the war). So it was impossible before, but magically now possible if it serves their weak arguements.
Gee, think they might have both harboured some bad feelings towards the US way before GWB was elected? Think they may have thought about common goals, especially after Afganistan? No, that's just crazy talk, it must be Bush's fault somehow.
Surprise! Iraq has gathered a coalition! Couldn't see it coming? How dumb.
Dumb is right. Dumb is to think that 'coalitions' of terrorist groups and state sponsors didn't already exist. Dumb is thinking Al Qaeda got in bed with Saddam after the war preparations got under way.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr."
The bag may also have contained a pork pie.
Here's a thought - why don't we wait until there is actual evidence one way or the other before calling this?
The Ba'ath party comes from the extreme end of the Pan-Arabist movement, whereas al-Qaeda follows an extreme version of Islamism. The two ideologies are very much opposed to each other, as the secular nature of Pan-Arabism represents everything that the al-Qaeda brand of Islamism is against. It would take a lot for al-Qaeda to co-operate with Hussein.
If these reports end up true (and note that the British have already fabricated the story of the Basra uprising), it follows a consistent pattern. Since Bosnia, where many in Al-Qaeda where initiated, Al-Qaeda's primary directive, in places like Afghanistan and Chechnya, has been to fight for the Muslim underdog in conflicts such as this. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam, and you are ignoring past trends to say that it does. You are also ignoring the fact that you have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever linking the Iraqi government with Al-Qaeda, and you aren't going to find it.
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So of course a handful Al quada fighters will be fighting in Iraq. So according to the article the coalition of the elephant, the mouse and the flea (Denmark) created the link between Iraq and AQ when they started the war in Iraq.
But of course the pro-war nuts who've never lived in an environment more multinational than the local taco stand are going to be screeaming, "See! They're working in collusion!"
Ya know, most people that I know that are for the war, while they dont like the protestors, most of them will still say atleast they have the right to say what they beleive.. whereas, we get the anti war people/protestors, most of whom do nothing but insult and call everyone else names.. is THAT peaceful? NO. I would tend to say most of the war protestors are in actually probably more violent that the people for it, and even more of them, are just in it, not because they are against war, but because they just want to be disruptive.
Ya know, most people that I know that are for the war, while they dont like the protestors, most of them will still say atleast they have the right to say what they beleive.. whereas, we get the anti war people/protestors, most of whom do nothing but insult and call everyone else names.. is THAT peaceful? NO. I would tend to say most of the war protestors are in actually probably more violent that the people for it, and even more of them, are just in it, not because they are against war, but because they just want to be disruptive.
The 200,000+ strong anti-war demonstration in NYC last weekend (March 22) attracted people from all walks of life. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian and Arab. Rich, poor and middle class. The young, the old and entire families marched peacefully through the city because they are opposed to the war on Iraq. These people are not anti-American. They are not pro-Saddam. They certainly do not look favorably on terrorism (remember what city this protest occurred in). They support the US troops and articulate this support by calling for the troops to be brought home. There are individuals at the fringes of the anti-war protest that are willing to cause disruption to get their message across, but they are far from being the majority. Regrettably, the disruption caused by some of these individuals is often what garners the most media attention.
(200,000 is a conservative estimate, by the way. The NYPD use a figure of 5,000-7,000 people per block when estimating crowd size in Manhattan. Although an official estimate was not made, the march stretched 39 blocks from 42nd street down to Washington Square Park. )
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
Common enemy. Sure. What would you expect?
This is the form of cooperation has been created by Mr. Bush.
But of course the pro-war nuts who've never lived in an environment more multinational than the local taco stand are going to be screeaming, "See! They're working in collusion!"
Anti-american analysis. Disregard as biased.
Well, I suppose it's possible. Doesn't seem plausible, but there you go.
"Two U.S. Marines avert their eyes
as they pass the sickening tribute to
the 9/11 terror strikes painted on the
wall of Iraq's abandoned military head
quarters at Nasiriyah."
- Joe Raedle/Getty Images
I think you are being extreme, to make a point, but that is the heart of the doctrine Bush is pushing.
again, let's wait and see what will actually fall out of this. early on this type of stuff is always wrong at some level.
Originally posted by tonton
Common enemy. Sure. What would you expect?
This is the form of cooperation that has been created by Mr. Bush.
Yeah, that's right, it must have been caused by the war on Iraq.
Funny, every liberal on this board for months spewed on about how there coundn't even be a real link between Bin laden and Saddam because the Baath party and Iraq were secular and Al Qaeda and Bin laden were so fundamentalist...that they hated each other too much to cooperate.
As soon a link might be established they now yell 'they are only together because of Bush and the war'.
So, before it was impossible, but now they can try and blame it on Bush (as now all things can be appearantly, because of the war). So it was impossible before, but magically now possible if it serves their weak arguements.
Gee, think they might have both harboured some bad feelings towards the US way before GWB was elected? Think they may have thought about common goals, especially after Afganistan? No, that's just crazy talk, it must be Bush's fault somehow.
Originally posted by tonton
Surprise! Iraq has gathered a coalition! Couldn't see it coming? How dumb.
Dumb is right. Dumb is to think that 'coalitions' of terrorist groups and state sponsors didn't already exist. Dumb is thinking Al Qaeda got in bed with Saddam after the war preparations got under way.
This is what I have seen all along, amazing it took others this long to see it.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr."
The bag may also have contained a pork pie.
Here's a thought - why don't we wait until there is actual evidence one way or the other before calling this?
The Ba'ath party comes from the extreme end of the Pan-Arabist movement, whereas al-Qaeda follows an extreme version of Islamism. The two ideologies are very much opposed to each other, as the secular nature of Pan-Arabism represents everything that the al-Qaeda brand of Islamism is against. It would take a lot for al-Qaeda to co-operate with Hussein.
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So of course a handful Al quada fighters will be fighting in Iraq. So according to the article the coalition of the elephant, the mouse and the flea (Denmark) created the link between Iraq and AQ when they started the war in Iraq.
Originally posted by tonton
Common enemy. Sure. What would you expect?
But of course the pro-war nuts who've never lived in an environment more multinational than the local taco stand are going to be screeaming, "See! They're working in collusion!"
Ya know, most people that I know that are for the war, while they dont like the protestors, most of them will still say atleast they have the right to say what they beleive.. whereas, we get the anti war people/protestors, most of whom do nothing but insult and call everyone else names.. is THAT peaceful? NO. I would tend to say most of the war protestors are in actually probably more violent that the people for it, and even more of them, are just in it, not because they are against war, but because they just want to be disruptive.
Originally posted by The General
Ya know, most people that I know that are for the war, while they dont like the protestors, most of them will still say atleast they have the right to say what they beleive.. whereas, we get the anti war people/protestors, most of whom do nothing but insult and call everyone else names.. is THAT peaceful? NO. I would tend to say most of the war protestors are in actually probably more violent that the people for it, and even more of them, are just in it, not because they are against war, but because they just want to be disruptive.
The 200,000+ strong anti-war demonstration in NYC last weekend (March 22) attracted people from all walks of life. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian and Arab. Rich, poor and middle class. The young, the old and entire families marched peacefully through the city because they are opposed to the war on Iraq. These people are not anti-American. They are not pro-Saddam. They certainly do not look favorably on terrorism (remember what city this protest occurred in). They support the US troops and articulate this support by calling for the troops to be brought home. There are individuals at the fringes of the anti-war protest that are willing to cause disruption to get their message across, but they are far from being the majority. Regrettably, the disruption caused by some of these individuals is often what garners the most media attention.
(200,000 is a conservative estimate, by the way. The NYPD use a figure of 5,000-7,000 people per block when estimating crowd size in Manhattan. Although an official estimate was not made, the march stretched 39 blocks from 42nd street down to Washington Square Park. )