A call to convert

[ManM]

Earlier this month, members of Al-Qaida called on Americans to convert to Islam. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060902/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_video) Even Ahmadinejad joined in with a similar call (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/wl_nm/iran_ahmadinejad_dc).

These are significant because they correspond with a hadith in Sahih Muslim, which is believed by Sunni Muslims to contain authentic sayings and deeds of Muhammad.

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
We need to be careful, as what appears to be harmless rhetoric to us has a deep historical and religious meaning to certain Muslims. A call to convert is an Islamic prelude to war. What happens when nuclear weapons proliferate throughout the region? Can we rest assured that the principles of MAD will keep them in check?

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[Clutch Munny]

I was under the impression that Al-Quaeda got over its reservations about attacking Americans some time ago. Isn't it a little late for this to count as a "prelude" to a war that we've been told once or twice is already raging?

[ManM]

Such calls have been coming consistently from Bin Laden and friends. The problem is that Ahmadinejad, leader of a country that is developing nuclear technology, is now joining in. It begs the question as to what role Iran will play in future events. Invitations to Islam would seem to indicate that it will be an aggressive role, whether direct (by military action) or indirect (by arming groups sympathetic to its goals).

[yguy]

I was under the impression that Al-Quaeda got over its reservations about attacking Americans some time ago. Isn't it a little late for this to count as a "prelude" to a war that we've been told once or twice is already raging?

I don't know where you get the idea this thing has an expiration date. In fact, considering their success in Spain, I wouldn't be surprised to see them try something in SF or LA sometime in October.

[Sock Puppet]

What the hell are you on about? What expiration date? The comment was that the war is ongoing, not that it has ended.

[RareBear]

Stopped drinking, started growing a beard and fucked my first goat last night. Conversion done.

[Watser?]

What happens when nuclear weapons proliferate throughout the region?
They already have. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a bit of an Al Qeada/Taliban problem. I think we have a lot more to worry about with Pakistan than with Iran.

[ChuckF]

Can we rest assured that the principles of MAD will keep them in check?
No. MAD as a deterrent is only effective in American policy towards Russia and vice versa, as Russia and the US are the only powers with sufficient nuclear arsenals and delivery mechanisms to "assure destruction." Assuming they did have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the US, a nuclear attack from Iran or pretty much anyone except Russia could not disable American second strike capabilities. American countermeasures, especially nuclear countermeasures, would likely disable enemy installations in addition to causing large amounts of collateral damage.

MAD also requires that both parties enjoy at least a casual relationship with sanity and reason. In the "rogue states" we hear about, this rapport has been supplanted by fantasies about postmortem personal harems or, in the case of North Korea, megalomaniacal xenophobia.

[Clutch Munny]

I was under the impression that Al-Quaeda got over its reservations about attacking Americans some time ago. Isn't it a little late for this to count as a "prelude" to a war that we've been told once or twice is already raging?

I don't know where you get the idea this thing has an expiration date. In fact, considering their success in Spain, I wouldn't be surprised to see them try something in SF or LA sometime in October.

Your post is incoherent. My point: saying that something is about to start after it has started is rather strange. "Expiration dates" have exactly nothing to do with this.

[Clutch Munny]

Such calls have been coming consistently from Bin Laden and friends.

Have they? Bin Laden's original fatwa, issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, did not include this to my knowledge. Maybe if one defines "friends" suitably broadly this is correct.

In any case, this cannot be a prelude to Al-Quaeda's attacking America, at least, since Al-Quaeda has already attacked America and relentlessly committed itself to continuing to attack America. The call to convert tells us nothing about Al-Quaeda.

The problem is that Ahmadinejad, leader of a country that is developing nuclear technology, is now joining in.

Have you made a study of how often various Islamic demagogues have called on Americans to convert? I haven't. But I find it implausible that these are the first two times it's happened.

It begs the question as to what role Iran will play in future events.

It raises the question, to a small extent; "beg the question" means something else. Other factors, like the disappearance of Iraq as a counterbalance to Tehran, had already raised this question far more pressingly, though.

Invitations to Islam would seem to indicate that it will be an aggressive role, whether direct (by military action) or indirect (by arming groups sympathetic to its goals).

Again, Iran has already done the latter, so again this cannot be a prelude to something that has long since occurred. I see no reason to think this a more germane concern regarding direct conflict than, say, a proven aggressive American presence in Iraq, moreover.

[Clutch Munny]

Stopped drinking, started growing a beard and fucked my first goat last night. Conversion done.

Because Muslims are goat-fuckers, for those of you trying to follow the brilliance of it all.

[RareBear]

Stopped drinking, started growing a beard and fucked my first goat last night. Conversion done.

Because Muslims are goat-fuckers, for those of you trying to follow the brilliance of it all.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a242/RareBird0/mohammed2.jpg

[Legs]

I wouldn't be surprised to see them try something in SF or LA sometime in October.

Why October? :jack:

[yguy]

If you will remember, the attack in Spain took place right before the election.

[Dingfod]

If you will remember, the attack in Spain took place right before the election.I wouldn't be a bit surprised, as it is in the interest of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to keep war-mongering Republicans in power, continuing to follow the al Qaeda playbook as they have been since 2001.

[Dingfod]

Stopped drinking, started growing a beard and fucked my first goat last night. Conversion done.Have you done the right thing by the goat yet? (http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/news-and-groups/news/accidents-involving-animals/man-marries-goat-in-shotgun-wedding-after-having-premarital-sex-with-animal-1296952)

[yguy]

If you will remember, the attack in Spain took place right before the election.I wouldn't be a bit surprised, as it is in the interest of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to keep war-mongering Republicans in power, continuing to follow the al Qaeda playbook as they have been since 2001.

I'm afraid you do not quite apprehend the situation. A terrorist attack on SF, which clearly has the highest number of traitorous cowards per capita of any US city, would more likely elicit from the Boxers, Schumers and Kennedys not calls for military action, but for Bush's impeachment.

[Shelli]

Stopped drinking, started growing a beard and fucked my first goat last night. Conversion done.Have you done the right thing by the goat yet? (http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/news-and-groups/news/accidents-involving-animals/man-marries-goat-in-shotgun-wedding-after-having-premarital-sex-with-animal-1296952)
:eek:


:lol:

[Dingfod]

If you will remember, the attack in Spain took place right before the election.I wouldn't be a bit surprised, as it is in the interest of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to keep war-mongering Republicans in power, continuing to follow the al Qaeda playbook as they have been since 2001.

I'm afraid you do not quite apprehend the situation. A terrorist attack on SF, which clearly has the highest number of traitorous cowards per capita of any US city, would more likely elicit from the Boxers, Schumers and Kennedys not calls for military action, but for Bush's impeachment.Apprehend the situation? I don't know, I think I've tackled the situation, pepper-sprayed and handcuffed it quite efficiently.

Where did I state that I thought an attack [anywhere] would benefit Republicans? I implied that al Qaeda might think that it would.

[yguy]

Where did I state that I thought an attack [anywhere] would benefit Republicans? I implied that al Qaeda might think that it would.

Why would they want that when the Democrats would rather have OBL as President than Bush?

[Dingfod]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

[godfry n. glad]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

Yes, but it makes him feel better.

[godfry n. glad]

I wouldn't be surprised to see them try something in SF or LA sometime in October.

Why October? :jack:

The "October Surprise". Something startlingly newsworthy, which buttresses the claims of one side or another in a national election. Usually, it's the party in power, as they generally have more, and better, resources to bring to bear.

US national elections are the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The "October Surprise" is usually fresh in the minds of the voters.

[Dingfod]

That is a complete lie and you know it.Yes, but it makes him feel better.So, does that mean we should indulge him in his little fantasies?

[Joshua Adams]

Too bad, we're not going to convert to Islam. We're finding our way back to the Lord (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-09-13T181300Z_01_N13197671_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-RELIGION.xml&archived=False&src=091306_1442_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters) instead.

[erimir]

Well, if Osama bin Laden was president, Bush wouldn't be. So that's a plus. Then Congress would immediately impeach OBL, and then OBL wouldn't be president either.

So looks like the net effect would be to kick Bush out of office.

[Watser?]

If you will remember, the attack in Spain took place right before the election.I wouldn't be a bit surprised, as it is in the interest of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to keep war-mongering Republicans in power, continuing to follow the al Qaeda playbook as they have been since 2001.

I'm afraid you do not quite apprehend the situation. A terrorist attack on SF, which clearly has the highest number of traitorous cowards per capita of any US city, would more likely elicit from the Boxers, Schumers and Kennedys not calls for military action, but for Bush's impeachment.

Traiterous cowards?

Seems to me the most traiterous cowards are the ones starting wars that benefit your nations enemies (having been 'too busy' to go to Vietnam themselves). The only ones who benefitted from the war in Iraq are al Qaeda that now controls Anbar province in Iraq and Iran which has on the one hand lost a powerful enemy in the region and got a virtual ally in return (with the pro-Iranian SCIRI in government). Bush should be impeached anyway, for starting that war and making the US less safe. Another attack would mean he botched the national security as well...

Why would they want that when the Democrats would rather have OBL as President than Bush?
Why look at that :eek: you lost your last shred of credibility on the subject :pat:

[Sock Puppet]

A terrorist attack on SF, which clearly has the highest number of traitorous cowards per capita of any US city, would more likely elicit from the Boxers, Schumers and Kennedys not calls for military action, but for Bush's impeachment.Oh, my lay-and. You just get better and better. This is more fun than your sophomoric sentence-parsing, at least. :popcorn:

[yguy]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

While it was indeed a tad hyberbolic, there is far more truth in it than in your idiotic assertion that Bush is playing by AQ's playbook. If anyone's doing that, it's the Democrats - along with those of their allies who pose as Republicans, like McCain.

[yguy]

Seems to me ...

Since yer a furriner, and and have some excuse for misunderstanding the political situation in the US, I'll just point out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. ;)

[Crumb]

I would not be surprised if a "furriner" had a better understanding of the political situation in the US than the average US citizen.

[D. Scarlatti]

I'll just point out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I've heard that before (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=276455&postcount=28). It doesn't seem to have panned out real well for you.

[yguy]

I'll just point out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I've heard that before (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=276455&postcount=28). It doesn't seem to have panned out real well for you.

I, of course, would not agree with that assessment. I think the record shows that I had your number from the beginning. :)

[D. Scarlatti]

I, of course, would not agree with that assessment.

Well of course not, because to do so wouldn't comport with your posture as an illiterate, contrarian numbskull. At any rate, I'm sure many of us will be entertained by your shallow, partisan take on international politics and U.S. foreign policy. And Crumb is quite correct, imo, in that being a European observer is unlikely to mitigate against a more nuanced and informed view of the subjects than the average Faux News dupe.

[Dingfod]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

While it was indeed a tad hyberbolic, there is far more truth in it than in your idiotic assertion that Bush is playing by AQ's playbook. If anyone's doing that, it's the Democrats - along with those of their allies who pose as Republicans, like McCain.Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the news lately. Our invasion of Iraq was exactly what al Qaeda wanted us to do in order to create Jihadi sanctuary and a recruiting ground and an Islamic theocracy. They also wish us to do the same to Syria.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp

[Watser?]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

While it was indeed a tad hyberbolic, there is far more truth in it than in your idiotic assertion that Bush is playing by AQ's playbook. If anyone's doing that, it's the Democrats - along with those of their allies who pose as Republicans, like McCain.Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the news lately. Our invasion of Iraq was exactly what al Qaeda wanted us to do in order to create Jihadi sanctuary and a recruiting ground and an Islamic theocracy. They also wish us to do the same to Syria.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp

I'm sure they do. In Iraq Sunnis are a minority, so they only control the Western province of Anbar where they are a local majority. In Syria Sunnis are about 60% of the population and except for the Druze areas (the Druze live in mountainous areas near the Lebanese and Israel borders and are fierce fighters) most of the country would soon be controlled by the only viable opposition, the (Sunni fundamentalist) Muslim Brotherhood.

Sadly, the current US administration is actually stupid enough to oblige them :(

[Dingfod]

Actually, I find it unlikely that Sunnis in Iraq are doing anything other than resisting the invasion of what was their country. al Qaeda would probably find more sympathetic and suicidal followers among Shiites.

[Watser?]

Actually, I find it unlikely that Sunnis in Iraq are doing anything other than resisting the invasion of what was their country. al Qaeda would probably find more sympathetic and suicidal followers among Shiites.

They might have if they weren't such bigots. Zarqawi especially hated Shi'ites more than non-Muslims almost. There might have been an alliance between Sunni insurgents and the anti-US (and as a matter of fact pretty much anti-Iran as well) militia of Muqtada al Sadr, but Zarqawi's strategy of blowing up Shi'ite civilians blew that...

[ManM]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

While it was indeed a tad hyberbolic, there is far more truth in it than in your idiotic assertion that Bush is playing by AQ's playbook. If anyone's doing that, it's the Democrats - along with those of their allies who pose as Republicans, like McCain.Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the news lately. Our invasion of Iraq was exactly what al Qaeda wanted us to do in order to create Jihadi sanctuary and a recruiting ground and an Islamic theocracy. They also wish us to do the same to Syria.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp
Great link Dingfod. Thanks for posting it.

[yguy]

That is a complete lie and you know it.

While it was indeed a tad hyberbolic, there is far more truth in it than in your idiotic assertion that Bush is playing by AQ's playbook. If anyone's doing that, it's the Democrats - along with those of their allies who pose as Republicans, like McCain.Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the news lately. Our invasion of Iraq was exactly what al Qaeda wanted us to do in order to create Jihadi sanctuary and a recruiting ground and an Islamic theocracy. They also wish us to do the same to Syria.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp


I read this far in the deceptively titled "Stealing Al Qaida's Playbook":

"In a sense, members of the jihadi movement have put their team’s playbooks online."

Why would they do that?

[D. Scarlatti]

I read this far in the deceptively titled "Stealing Al Qaida's Playbook":

"In a sense, members of the jihadi movement have put their team’s playbooks online."

Why would they do that?

lol

At least two reasons are given in the preceding paragraph.

[yguy]

I read this far in the deceptively titled "Stealing Al Qaida's Playbook":

"In a sense, members of the jihadi movement have put their team’s playbooks online."

Why would they do that?

lol

At least two reasons are given in the preceding paragraph.

Jumping Jesus, what a retard.

[D. Scarlatti]

Jumping Jesus, what a retard.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Anybody could have missed that entire paragraph, not just a retard.

[Clutch Munny]

I read this far in the deceptively titled "Stealing Al Qaida's Playbook":

"In a sense, members of the jihadi movement have put their team’s playbooks online."

Why would they do that?

[J]ihadi leaders have had to put their writings online so as to provide continuing guidance to a very decentralized following.

Keep up the good work, pumpkin. You cover yourself in glory every day.

[Watser?]

Jumping Jesus, what a retard.
:mirror:

[yguy]

I don't suppose it has occurred to any members of the FF brain trust to ask what advantage there would be to the jihadists in distributing their "playbook" to the general public.

[D. Scarlatti]

superior understanding ... moron ... idiot ... retard ...

I thought you were the FF brain trust.

[Watser?]

I don't suppose it has occurred to any members of the FF brain trust to ask what advantage there would be to the jihadists in distributing their "playbook" to the general public.

You mean the general public that knows Arabic and has a familiarity with Western strategic studies (from which they draw heavily), medieval Islamic history and theology, and contemporary developments in the jihadi movement.

Let me repeat that sentence, because you are still determined to miss it:
[J]ihadi leaders have had to put their writings online so as to provide continuing guidance to a very decentralized following.

The internet is virtually the only means of communication between the al Qaeda leadership and their potential recruits.

Besides there is not a chance that the US leadership would listen to the voice of reason telling them they are doing exactly what al Qaeda wants. We told them before the Iraq war...

[yguy]

I don't suppose it has occurred to any members of the FF brain trust to ask what advantage there would be to the jihadists in distributing their "playbook" to the general public.

You mean the general public that knows Arabic and has a familiarity with Western strategic studies (from which they draw heavily), medieval Islamic history and theology, and contemporary developments in the jihadi movement.

No, I mean the general public who can read the translations, or the synopses thereof.

The internet is virtually the only means of communication between the al Qaeda leadership and their potential recruits.

Why not email, then?

Besides there is not a chance that the US leadership would listen

Indeed, I doubt they'd be dumb enough to do that. :)

[Watser?]

I don't suppose it has occurred to any members of the FF brain trust to ask what advantage there would be to the jihadists in distributing their "playbook" to the general public.

You mean the general public that knows Arabic and has a familiarity with Western strategic studies (from which they draw heavily), medieval Islamic history and theology, and contemporary developments in the jihadi movement.

No, I mean the general public who can read the translations, or the synopses thereof.
They didn't distribute the translations though, did they?

The internet is virtually the only means of communication between the al Qaeda leadership and their potential recruits.

Why not email, then?
Hehe, you actually believe email is not public...

Besides there is not a chance that the US leadership would listen

Indeed, I doubt they'd be dumb enough to do that. :)
I think the evidence is that they are dumber than a brick wall. They have fucked up literally everything there is to fuck up. The deficit, the way they handled Katrina before, during and after, catching Osama, Afghanistan, Iraq (in so many interesting ways). In fact the only thing they are good at is winning elections.

[Watser?]

OMG, I totally forgot who I was talking to :doh:

You're right, listening to reason is the dumbest thing anyone could ever do :pat:

[yguy]

I see there are some here who need a clue. They probably don't want one, but here it is anyway:

If you intend to win a war, and you are physically overmatched by your opponent, you do not make your "game plan" public knowledge unless you're stupid. Discounting that possibility, it follows that anything our enemy makes public has propaganda value, since deception is the primary weapon of the weak. Our enemies are clearly drawing a parallel between the Iraq war and the Viet Nam war; and they not ignorant of the role the American media played as de facto propaganda ministers for Ho Chi Minh and company. They know that while the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the NVA, it was twisted by Walter Cronkite so as to make it appear to be a defeat for the US; and they know that, likewise, the traitorous left would like nothing better than to see Bush fail in Iraq, and have hardly missed an opportunity to make the good guys look like the bad guys and vice versa. Whoever decided this "game plan" should be available to the public knew that the people most likely to take it seriously are the very same people who most want America to be disgraced by pulling out and thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hope that helps. :)

[Watser?]

Oh yeah, the famous we-would-have-won-in-Vietnam-but-we-were-stabbed-in-the-back-argument.
The 'traiterous left' does not WANT to see Bush fail, Bush HAS already failed. There is no way the US will win this war. You don't even have a definition of what winning this war constitutes. There is no plan, there never was. This is a war that could go on forever and continue to suck more money, manpower and rescources. But by all means go ahead, it's not like it's my money anyway.

And while we are on the Vietnam comparison: the same bullshit was spouted then, by the same idiots like you, about having to fight them at home if you would stop fighting them there and about dominoes falling. The communists would follow you home. And you know what happened? Turned out the people you were fighting weren't so much communists fighting for world domination but nationalists fighting against US domination of their country.

It's not just Al Qaeda that is laughing here, it's also Iran, China, Russia, North Korea. In fact the US has become a joke to all the world. :mocking: A sad joke though :sadcheer: , it's a shame to see a once great country choke itself to death on a foreign war, just like the Soviet Union did on Afghanistan.

[yguy]

In fact the US has become a joke to all the world. :mocking:

Laugh while you may...all the way to the mosque, sucker. :)

[davidm]

...they know that, likewise, the traitorous left would like nothing better than to see Bush fail in Iraq, and have hardly missed an opportunity to make the good guys look like the bad guys and vice versa.

Good point.

However, this debate is usually framed wrongly, I believe, and I'd like to offer a different perspective.

The left tries to immunize themselves against accusations of being traitorous by emphasizing that while they "support the troops" they oppose Bush.

The problem, though, is that everyone has it backwards. In my case, I support Bush, but oppose the troops.

Henny penny, the troops have done a horrible job! Anbar Province is an insurgent stronghold, 150 bodies have been found in Baghdad in the last four days alone and now they're building a trench around the city to defend it.

This is what happens when you have a volunteer army, I suppose. I imagine the divisions and brigades are rife with carnality and sodomlust.

[Clutch Munny]

If you intend to win a war, and you are physically overmatched by your opponent, you do not make your "game plan" public knowledge unless you're stupid.

Or unless you're making your "game plan" known at a level of generality that will permit its application by your followers without giving much concrete assistance to your enemies. (For instance, if your plan is to force your enemy to commit forces to defending many targets he is unwilling to risk, by randomly attacking only a few of these targets, by its very content your plan will remain effective despite being publicized, provided its basic assumptions are correct. You instruct your followers on the strategic plan; your enemy's knowing it does not materially help him, if he really is committed to defending those targets.)

Or unless doing so is the best you can do when confronted with increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance of direct communications.

Or unless you're looking for solutions that minimize operational expenses, at a risk you judge acceptable of local losses to counteroffensives.

Inventing absolute principles like the one quoted above doesn't accomplish anything. The reasons for making a "gameplan" public are still many and varied, and your ridiculous question based on failing to read still makes you look like a buffoon.

[Freddy]

The war in Iraq was a mistake. That said Bush defeated Saddam and his army. After Saddam's fall from power Bush should have withdrawn and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds fight it out in a civil war. It is going to happen anyway, in fact, it is already happening. The idea of democracy in Iraq while these ethnic and religious divisions are tearing the country apart is not possible. Thousands of American lives would have been spared, hundreds of billions of dollars would have been saved, and thousands of foreign fighters may not have come to Iraq if the infidel Americans were not there. Nation building in the Western democratic tradition will not work in Iraq. It did not work in Vietnam either, as there was never a democratic government there before or after the Americans got involved. Diem, Minh, Thieu, and Ky were all US lackeys.

[yguy]

If you intend to win a war, and you are physically overmatched by your opponent, you do not make your "game plan" public knowledge unless you're stupid.

Or unless you're making your "game plan" known at a level of generality that will permit its application by your followers without giving much concrete assistance to your enemies. (For instance, if your plan is to force your enemy to commit forces to defending many targets he is unwilling to risk, by randomly attacking only a few of these targets, by its very content your plan will remain effective despite being publicized, provided its basic assumptions are correct. You instruct your followers on the strategic plan; your enemy's knowing it does not materially help him, if he really is committed to defending those targets.)

The problem, of course, is that since your adversary is vastly superior, among the "basic assumptions" that must remain "correct" is that your enemy will not, by pressuring their leaders or taking direct action itself, flush you out of whatever countries are harboring you - IOW, the martial equivalent of hoping Mike Tyson will just sit there and stick his chin out for you to hack away at it. You might accomplish this if you can get one of his entourage to slip him a mickey...and in the case of the US, a decent parallel might be realizing that a great portion of the American public can be gulled by a traitorous media. :)

Or unless doing so is the best you can do when confronted with increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance of direct communications.

Or unless you're looking for solutions that minimize operational expenses, at a risk you judge acceptable of local losses to counteroffensives.

Yes, I'm sure Polish commanders could have justified a cavalry charge against a division of tanks on similar grounds.

[yguy]

The war in Iraq was a mistake.

There is no way to know that at this point. With the information available to the President at the time, exploratory surgery using bullets and bombs was easily justifiable as the next step after Afghanistan...

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally. :)

That said Bush defeated Saddam and his army. After Saddam's fall from power Bush should have withdrawn and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds fight it out in a civil war. It is going to happen anyway, in fact, it is already happening. The idea of democracy in Iraq while these ethnic and religious divisions are tearing the country apart is not possible.

No one has any way of knowing that; but the fact that Iran and Syria are right next door makes it not such a bad place for our forces to be.

Thousands of American lives would have been spared, hundreds of billions of dollars would have been saved,

Maybe you think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well.

and thousands of foreign fighters may not have come to Iraq if the infidel Americans were not there.

Why would that have been a good thing? You'd rather they were still alive?

[Dingfod]

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally. :)You think a smiley takes away the heinousness of that suggestion?

[yguy]

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally. :)You think a smiley takes away the heinousness of that suggestion?

There being nothing heinous about the suggestion, I see no reason to care.

[Dingfod]

You would like to see a city of 14 million human beings be nuked? That's pretty heinous.

[yguy]

You would like to see a city of 14 million human beings be nuked?

No, I wouldn't "like" it. I would prefer it to sending thousands more of our troops into harm's way.

And anyway, they could be given 48 hours to evacuate. Not that I would hold off if they all stayed put, though.

[Watser?]

You would like to see a city of 14 million human beings be nuked?

No, I wouldn't "like" it. I would prefer it to sending thousands more of our troops into harm's way.

And anyway, they could be given 48 hours to evacuate. Not that I would hold off if they all stayed put, though.

Every day I am still amazed at the depths of your stupidity and immorality...

[Clutch Munny]

If you intend to win a war, and you are physically overmatched by your opponent, you do not make your "game plan" public knowledge unless you're stupid.

Or unless you're making your "game plan" known at a level of generality that will permit its application by your followers without giving much concrete assistance to your enemies. (For instance, if your plan is to force your enemy to commit forces to defending many targets he is unwilling to risk, by randomly attacking only a few of these targets, by its very content your plan will remain effective despite being publicized, provided its basic assumptions are correct. You instruct your followers on the strategic plan; your enemy's knowing it does not materially help him, if he really is committed to defending those targets.)

The problem, of course, is that since your adversary is vastly superior, among the "basic assumptions" that must remain "correct" is that your enemy will not, by pressuring their leaders or taking direct action itself, flush you out of whatever countries are harboring you

More specifically, that they will not generally succeed in this. You would, in any case, hope that they will go about it in hamfisted and callous ways, so that their tactics will backfire by creating a large recruiting pool for you.

Are we still pretending, btw, that you read and understood the article before asking for information it gave you?

IOW, the martial equivalent of hoping Mike Tyson will just sit there and stick his chin out for you to hack away at it.

No. That is not the equivalent, nor even a strained analogy, for the suggestion that the US might be only partially successful in flushing out terrorists from the crowded neighbourhoods of sympathetic countries made more sympathetic by American military invasions.

[Shelli]

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally. :)
Consider getting more fiber, dude. :crap:

[D. Scarlatti]

With the information available to the President at the time, exploratory surgery using bullets and bombs was easily justifiable as the next step after Afghanistan...

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally.

I think what yguy is pretty clearly saying is that he personally would have preferred the deaths of millions of Iranians to the deaths of merely tens of thousands of Iraqis. He's also claimed that he only believes 99% of the Bible, so presumably the other 1% is somehow in reference to the career and teachings of Jesus.

Please stand by for the requisite handwaving, backpedalling, and barrage of patronizing insults.

[davidm]

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally. :)


OK, mister! From now on, it's decaf for you!

[Watser?]

although I would have preferred to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran, personally. :)
Consider getting more fiber, dude. :crap:

Yeah, moral fiber :D

[yguy]

More specifically, that they will not generally succeed in this. You would, in any case, hope that they will go about it in hamfisted and callous ways, so that their tactics will backfire by creating a large recruiting pool for you.

Or, lacking the benefit of any such "hamfisted" conduct, you would hope that you had the assistance of a propaganda engine that would strain out gnats where your enemy is concerned and and swallow camels where you are concerned. :)

Are we still pretending, btw, that you read and understood the article before asking for information it gave you?

Since I never pretended to have read any more than I said I did, it's an idiotic question.

[TheBeast]

You're pretty fucking sick, Yguy.

And pretty fucking stupid if you think a 14,000,000 can be evacuated in 48 hours.

And even if you pull that off, where are they going to go. Er....different part of the country? And they either get rejected or force others out, and so people keep going and going until you get 14,000,000 immigrants in your neighbourhood.

So, a nuked, deserted city, a nation or a few in turmoil, and a society overrun by the people whose city you chose to destroy.

Way to fuck the world up, genius!

[TheBeast]

Maybe you think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well.


Maybe you would have if you hadn't been attacked directly.

And there's the fundamental arse-clencher of a difference that pisses all over your argument, Yguy!

But, as much as you love Iran, I must inform you that Western inference in the middle east has practically granted Iran enough power to achieve total dominance in the middle east, and if it truly is building nukes, then once that is done, Iran will anally fuck all over any power or influence the west had in the middle east.

[yguy]

You're pretty fucking sick, Yguy.

Thanks. :)

And pretty fucking stupid if you think a 14,000,000 can be evacuated in 48 hours.

So make it 72, or 96.

And even if you pull that off, where are they going to go.

They shoulda thoughta that when their fearless leaders - who gained that stature by popular sufferance - decided to try, through their terrorist proxies, to do to us and Israel what we'd be about to do to them.

[TheBeast]

Fuck Israel, the bunch of murdering hide behind their religious affiliation with the west no good scum!

[yguy]

Maybe you think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well.


Maybe you would have if you hadn't been attacked directly.

And there's the fundamental arse-clencher of a difference that pisses all over your argument, Yguy!

I don't see how. Most likely there's nothing to see anyway. :)

But, as much as you love Iran, I must inform you that Western inference in the middle east has practically granted Iran enough power to achieve total dominance in the middle east, and if it truly is building nukes, then once that is done, Iran will anally fuck all over any power or influence the west had in the middle east.

Well then I guess you better just stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. :)

[D. Scarlatti]

I never pretended to have read any more than I said I did

And you only pretended to have read that, I believe is the point.

[Clutch Munny]

More specifically, that they will not generally succeed in this. You would, in any case, hope that they will go about it in hamfisted and callous ways, so that their tactics will backfire by creating a large recruiting pool for you.

Or, lacking the benefit of any such "hamfisted" conduct, you would hope that you had the assistance of a propaganda engine that would strain out gnats where your enemy is concerned and and swallow camels where you are concerned. :)

Of course you're full of shit. But notice: even by your own bizarro-world descriptions of events, you've been busily arguing that circumstances making it reasonable to "post the playbook" are not only possible but actual.

As part of your particular psychopathology, you put this down to a "traitorous" media. Either way you're endorsing the "public playbook" observation.

[TheBeast]

Maybe you think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well.


Maybe you would have if you hadn't been attacked directly.

And there's the fundamental arse-clencher of a difference that pisses all over your argument, Yguy!

I don't see how. Most likely there's nothing to see anyway. :)

B-e-c-a-u-s-e t-h-e-r-e i-s n-o a-n-a-l-o-g-y b-e-t-w-e-e-n W-W-I-I a-n-d t-h-e I-r-a-q W-a-r.

But, as much as you love Iran, I must inform you that Western inference in the middle east has practically granted Iran enough power to achieve total dominance in the middle east, and if it truly is building nukes, then once that is done, Iran will anally fuck all over any power or influence the west had in the middle east.

Well then I guess you better just stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. :)

Maybe if people like you stopped fucking with foreign affairs, it won't come to that. Anyway, America is going to get dropped if any such scenario does occur.

[Dragar]

You would like to see a city of 14 million human beings be nuked?

No, I wouldn't "like" it. I would prefer it to sending thousands more of our troops into harm's

It's interesting you place more than ten thousand times more value on humans born in your country than another. :(

[D. Scarlatti]

It's only common sense. What's the problem?

[yguy]

But notice: even by your own bizarro-world descriptions of events, you've been busily arguing that circumstances making it reasonable to "post the playbook" are not only possible but actual.

Not at all. They didn't post the whole playbook, because that would have detailed how they were going to effectively infiltrate the western media.

[yguy]

Maybe you think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well.


Maybe you would have if you hadn't been attacked directly.

And there's the fundamental arse-clencher of a difference that pisses all over your argument, Yguy!

I don't see how. Most likely there's nothing to see anyway. :)

B-e-c-a-u-s-e t-h-e-r-e i-s n-o a-n-a-l-o-g-y b-e-t-w-e-e-n W-W-I-I a-n-d t-h-e I-r-a-q W-a-r.

In many ways that's true, but the psychology behind leaders and followers hasn't changed since the beginning of the human race. In 1945, as firmly bonded to the delusions provided by their leaders as the Japanese were, we managed nevertheless to get their full and undivided attention; and they are better off for having gotten a slap upside the head they'll never forget.

Maybe if people like you stopped fucking with foreign affairs, it won't come to that. Anyway, America is going to get dropped if any such scenario does occur.

I dunno. I think it's more likely that Europe will come crying to America when your Muslims decide to put the lot of you under Sharia law...and that this time around you'll find yourselves SOL. :)

[Watser?]

What a disgusting piece of scum you are. I always wondered who the idiots were who still think Bush is doing very well. What the fuck are you still doing here anyway if you think like that, soldiers are dying for your delusions. Get your hypocritical butt out there to Iraq.

[D. Scarlatti]

Wherein our resident Judeo-Christian moralist refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a slap upside the head.

[Watser?]

Wherein our resident Judeo-Christian moralist refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a slap upside the head.

9/11 was just a mosquito bite donchaknow

[TheBeast]

Maybe you think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well.


Maybe you would have if you hadn't been attacked directly.

And there's the fundamental arse-clencher of a difference that pisses all over your argument, Yguy!

I don't see how. Most likely there's nothing to see anyway. :)

B-e-c-a-u-s-e t-h-e-r-e i-s n-o a-n-a-l-o-g-y b-e-t-w-e-e-n W-W-I-I a-n-d t-h-e I-r-a-q W-a-r.

In many ways that's true, but the psychology behind leaders and followers hasn't changed since the beginning of the human race. In 1945, as firmly bonded to the delusions provided by their leaders as the Japanese were, we managed nevertheless to get their full and undivided attention; and they are better off for having gotten a slap upside the head they'll never forget.

Many ways?! It's true no matter which way you look at it. That you invoke the history of Pearl Harbour only betrays your ignorance, since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

And did you just...um...did you just...er....did you seriously just compare the nuking of 2 cities with a slap on the head?!

Oh...you did. Well at least you didn't say something stupid like Japan is better off...

Oh


your


sick


God!

Maybe if people like you stopped fucking with foreign affairs, it won't come to that. Anyway, America is going to get dropped if any such scenario does occur.

I dunno. I think it's more likely that Europe will come crying to America when your Muslims decide to put the lot of you under Sharia law...and that this time around you'll find yourselves SOL. :)

Our muslims?! Do you have any idea how UK politics works? The muslims are not, and cannot, just put us under 'Sharia law'. To achieve that would require that the muslims win votes in public and in government. Unless there are enough muslims in government to have power to establish Sharia law, then all the votes in the world won't get Sharia law established.

Britain would have to undergo a fuck-off sized political reformation, taking it from a democracy to an Islamic theocracy. Do you have any idea how unfeasible that is?

Do you?

Do you?

DO YOU?!


And stop fucking smiling like some depraved simpering seed of nefarious malign!

[Raven]

yguy I was wondering , how did you lose your humanity ?

[Clutch Munny]

Oh, for pete's sake. The jackass is a three year-old saying "poo-poo!", aiming to get a shocked reaction to his nuke bluster. Don't indulge him.

[yguy]

Many ways?! It's true no matter which way you look at it. That you invoke the history of Pearl Harbour only betrays your ignorance,

Maybe it would, had I ever mentioned Pearl Harbor. Idiot. :rolleyes:

since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

He hasn't stated any such thing. Even the Senate 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

And did you just...um...did you just...er....did you seriously just compare the nuking of 2 cities with a slap on the head?!

Oh...you did. Well at least you didn't say something stupid like Japan is better off...

Japan isn't better off?

Do you have any idea how UK politics works?

I didn't say it was gonna happen this year, moron. Again, all you have to do is look at Spain - and then ask yourself how many of your fellow Brits could be similarly terrorized into compliance.

[yguy]

yguy I was wondering , how did you lose your humanity ?

I think the question would be better directed at the simpering cowards who delude themselves into thinking Islamic terrorists will be nice to us if we're nice to them.

[Watser?]

yguy I was wondering , how did you lose your humanity ?

I think the question would be better directed at the simpering cowards who delude themselves into thinking Islamic terrorists will be nice to us if we're nice to them.

I have no idea who you mean, I don't know anybody who thinks that, all I see are people who are smart enough to realise that we are not fighting ALL Muslims here

I would be happy to join Muslims in lynching Bush or Cheney

you on the other hand are one of those cowards who is willing to start wars but not willing to fight himself

and not prepared to face up to the fact that you lost the war, it takes courage to do that and you don't have that and neither does the whimpering coward Bush who weaseled out of going to Vietnam, as did the sniveling coward Cheney

typical

[yguy]

I think the question would be better directed at the simpering cowards who delude themselves into thinking Islamic terrorists will be nice to us if we're nice to them.

I have no idea who you mean, I don't know anybody who thinks that, ...

If you're not lying, then you're unforgivably stupid.

[Watser?]

I think the question would be better directed at the simpering cowards who delude themselves into thinking Islamic terrorists will be nice to us if we're nice to them.

I have no idea who you mean, I don't know anybody who thinks that, ...

If you're not lying, then you're unforgivably stupid.

Coming from an idiot like you that is a compliment

So thanks :D

[TheBeast]

Many ways?! It's true no matter which way you look at it. That you invoke the history of Pearl Harbour only betrays your ignorance,

Maybe it would, had I ever mentioned Pearl Harbor. Idiot. :rolleyes:

I never said you did mention Pearl Harbor, you fuckup!

since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

He hasn't stated any such thing. Even the Senate 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Reporter: So, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Bush: No

And did you just...um...did you just...er....did you seriously just compare the nuking of 2 cities with a slap on the head?!

Oh...you did. Well at least you didn't say something stupid like Japan is better off...

Japan isn't better off?

And you think that has anything to do with being nuked? Nagasaki and Hiroshima were NOT better off for having being nuked, and the rest of Japan will certainly be even better off than it is now had the nukes not been dropped

Do you have any idea how UK politics works?

I didn't say it was gonna happen this year, moron. Again, all you have to do is look at Spain - and then ask yourself how many of your fellow Brits could be similarly terrorized into compliance.

Moron?! MORON?! M-O-R-O-N-?-!

You fucking hypocrite! Who said anything about this year?! If you're going to argue like that, then don't blame me when the Mexicans march upon Washington and force you all to scrap migration laws!


Cockwad.

[yguy]

since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

He hasn't stated any such thing. Even the Senate 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Reporter: So, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Bush: No

You forgot the link...

...you lying maggot. :)

Japan isn't better off?

And you think that has anything to do with being nuked?

You better believe it.

[D. Scarlatti]

Even the Senate [sic] 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Citation please.

[Sauron]

While it was indeed a tad hyberbolic, there is far more truth in it than in your idiotic assertion that Bush is playing by AQ's playbook.

He may not realize that he is doing so, but that's exactly what the Coward from Crawford is doing.

If anyone's doing that, it's the Democrats blah blah blah

AQ prefers a state of hostility. The Democrats are proposing actions to reduce that situation.

So sad, you lose again.

[Sauron]

I see there are some here who need a clue.

Pity you don't have any clues to spare - you're already deficient yourself.


If you intend to win a war, and you are physically overmatched by your opponent, you do not make your "game plan" public knowledge unless you're stupid.

Incorrect. I can think of several reasons right off the bat, besides the simplistic binary choice you offer.

Or unless you have reason to believe that the enemy doesn't care about your game plan and will not take it seriously *precisely because* you made it public;

Or, unless the plan is already known to the US military, in which case concealing it no longer has any military value. In that situation, concealment actually makes independent operatives less effective;

Or, unless this is the *old* game plan, in which case it is offered up as a red herring to the USA, while AQ runs around calling plays from a totally different playbook;

Your ability to analyze political/military situations is predictably shallow and crippled by an obsessive desire to somehow demonstrate relevance. How sad.


Discounting that possibility, it follows that anything our enemy makes public has propaganda value,

It does not follow at all.


since deception is the primary weapon of the weak.

Since the Bush administration deceived the public and the world about Iraq from Day 1, I'd say that this is an accurate indictment of them, if I have ever heard one.

Our enemies are clearly drawing a parallel between the Iraq war and the Viet Nam war; and they not ignorant of the role the American media played as de facto propaganda ministers for Ho Chi Minh and company.

Recycled, antiquated grudge propaganda from the far right is not a substitute for actual analysis.

[Sauron]

The problem, of course, is that since your adversary is vastly superior, among the "basic assumptions" that must remain "correct" is that your enemy will not, by pressuring their leaders or taking direct action itself, flush you out of whatever countries are harboring you

Which isn't going to happen.

1. The US commitment of troops is already at the breaking point; not sure where you think this magical new troop level will come from;

2. Moreover, the location of AQ is not static - and the number of countries that the US would need to invade to pull off your fantasy scenario are quite a few. The US would not get any intl cooperation from the "coalition of the small and quickly leaving" to do that;

3. The local govts would not cooperate with US troops on their soil, because that would spark local resistance movements as well as make those govts into new targets for AQ;

4. Geting rid of 100% of AQ right now, with a magic wand, would not make the problem in Iraq go away, nor the problem in Palestine, nor the problem in Lebanon, nor the problem in Chechnya, nor the problem in Thailand, nor the problem in Malaysia.....need I go on? Your inability to grasp the complexities of the issue and the region betrays a underdeveloped sense of nuance;


and in the case of the US, a decent parallel might be realizing that a great portion of the American public can be gulled by a traitorous media. :)

Except there is no traitorous media. A spotlight on incompetency is not treason.

Unless you're a conservative, of course.


Yes, I'm sure Polish commanders could have justified a cavalry charge against a division of tanks on similar grounds.

Not parallel. As usual.

[Sauron]

The war in Iraq was a mistake.

There is no way to know that at this point. With the information available to the President at the time, exploratory surgery using bullets and bombs was easily justifiable as the next step after Afghanistan...

Uh, no. It was not. As evidenced by the fact that the PNAC had a plan for regime change in Iraq even before 9/11. And since there was no connection between Iraq and AQ, a connection therefore (and of course) had to be fabricated.

The rest is the sad history of this fucked up neo-con administration.

[TheBeast]

since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

He hasn't stated any such thing. Even the Senate 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Reporter: So, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Bush: No

You forgot the link...

...you lying maggot. :)

Maggot? For someone who has never done any active military service (just like a typical neocon) you're quick to use officer lexis.

It was a T.V. clip taken and used on the Daily Show. Now, I KNOW THE DAILY SHOW IS SATIRICAL but the clip they used was an actual news clip, shown along with Stewart's witticisms to berate Bush.

Anyway, when the hell did you ever provide a link.

Japan isn't better off?

And you think that has anything to do with being nuked?

You better believe it.

Why? 2 irradiated cities, millions dead. You could have taken Japan without the nukes, and you sick fucks berate everyone else for building or considering the use of nuclear weapons. The fact is, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was mass mass mass mass mass murder, and the only gain anyone has from it is not to use nukes.

[Watser?]

since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

He hasn't stated any such thing. Even the Senate 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Reporter: So, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Bush: No

You forgot the link...

...you lying maggot. :)

Maggot? For someone who has never done any active military service (just like a typical neocon) you're quick to use officer lexis.

It was a T.V. clip taken and used on the Daily Show. Now, I KNOW THE DAILY SHOW IS SATIRICAL but the clip they used was an actual news clip, shown along with Stewart's witticisms to berate Bush.

Anyway, when the hell did you ever provide a link.

You're right of course
But here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztX_pcLN4eY) anyway.

[TheBeast]

My apologies.

The actual quote is

'What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?'

'Nothing'

[TheBeast]

Bush's desperation becomes evident as he goes to extreme conscription measures (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/army-hamster.html)

[Watser?]

yguy I was wondering , how did you lose your humanity ?

I think the question would be better directed at the simpering cowards who delude themselves into thinking Islamic terrorists will be nice to us if we're nice to them.

Oh, btw here (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/19/103354/162) 's an article on how Bush is appeasing Pakistan, which has just released a whole Guantanamo-load of Islamist fighters, among them the killers of Daniel Pearle (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/response/pearl.html).

Should I also remind you that Pakistan has called an amnesty for pro-Taliban fighters?
That Pakistan has nuclear weapons? (No, they are not alledgedly developing them like Iran, they HAVE them).

[Clutch Munny]

The transcript is widely available online, for those whose political positions can survive contact with actual data. Here's one (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/) link. yguy, don't worry, nobody expects you to click on links, or read, or learn at this point. Do continue to spin out your fascinating theories, though!

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

[yguy]

Even the Senate [sic] 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Citation please.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

[yguy]

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Thanks. Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.

[D. Scarlatti]

Thanks.

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq (or so Bush has stated).

He hasn't stated any such thing. Even the Senate 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier [1998] contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.[n76]

76. We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Compelling stuff. If the meetings took place, nothing connects them with 9/11. Isn't that exactly what TheBeast was saying when you proffered your objection on 9/11 Commission grounds?

[D. Scarlatti]

Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.

Hmm, interesting sentence. Are you saying that

a) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it

or are you saying that

b) Bush was disavowing the idea that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it?

[TheBeast]

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Thanks. Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.

Um...no he wasn't.

He denied that Iraq had any involvement in 9/11, then to cover his own ass answered a strawman of a question he knew everyone wanted to ask.

'We never said Iraq ORDERED the 9/11 attacks'

'No-one said you did, Chimplad, we're just going on reports from your boys that Iraq was involved'

Note - Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush's excuse here, sans the strawman, was to hit Iraq before Iraq did anything.

Much like Israel (FUCK ISRAEL!) - Fuck people over and cry

'Well, they would have started it if we hadn't started first. It's pre-emptive self-defence'

Murdering bastards

[yguy]

Why? 2 irradiated cities, millions dead. You could have taken Japan without the nukes,

Sure we could have - at the cost of 10's of thousands more of our men, and God knows how many more Japanese.

The fact is, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was mass mass mass mass mass murder

But if we'd have killed ten times more of them doing it your way it wouldn't have been. Right, Einstein? :rolleyes:

[TheBeast]

The claim that many more Japs or Yanks would have died is a totally unfounded speculation, and in fact is taken by many as a product of bullshit American propaganda, intended to justify the biggest genocidal act ever performed by a democratic nation.

[yguy]

Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.

Hmm, interesting sentence. Are you saying that

a) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it

Yes. 9/11 was not just an attack on US territory - it was a declaration of war. Thus, anyone who knowingly supported AQ in any way effectively joined in that declaration.

[yguy]

Murdering bastards

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My opinion is that you will find yourself under Sharia law in your lifetime. And it's exactly what you deserve. :)

[D. Scarlatti]

Yes. 9/11 was not just an attack on US territory - it was a declaration of war. Thus, anyone who knowingly supported AQ in any way effectively joined in that declaration.

Fine. Nothing's prevented you from engaging in conjecture, hyperbole, and wild speculation up to this point and it appears highly unlikely you're able to restrain yourself.

Just don't rely on the 9/11 Commission Report, because it expressly disclaims any evidence making the connection between Iraq and not only 9/11 but "any attacks against America."

[yguy]

Just don't rely on the 9/11 Commission Report, because it expressly disclaims any evidence making the connection between Iraq and not only 9/11 but "any attacks against America."

Its conclusions are of no particular moment in this context. What is salient is that a bipartisan committee admits there is hard evidence of meetings with AQ which were initiated by Iraq. And that's only the contacts they know about.

[D. Scarlatti]

Its conclusions are of no particular moment in this context.

Obviously not, since your attachment to them has just been debunked.

But don't worry, you just go ahead and make some other shit up. Next thing you'll be telling us the guy who served one of the hijackers a beer in a titty bar on the evening of 9/10 is a terrorist too.

[yguy]

Its conclusions are of no particular moment in this context.

Obviously not, since your attachment to them has just been debunked.

I never had or expressed any such "attatchment", liar.

[TheBeast]

Murdering bastards

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My opinion is that you will find yourself under Sharia law in your lifetime. And it's exactly what you deserve. :)

Your opinion means nothing to me. I don't know you, and I couldn't give two fucks about you.

However, I will say that your Islamophobia only adds credence to the arguments of your opponents. If people like you dictated how the world works, we'd have a utopia of pseudosatisfaction and blanket happiness veiling torment and oppression.

[TheBeast]

Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.

Hmm, interesting sentence. Are you saying that

a) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it

Yes. 9/11 was not just an attack on US territory - it was a declaration of war. Thus, anyone who knowingly supported AQ in any way effectively joined in that declaration.

Declaration of a war started LONG before 9/11.

No, it was an attack on America, and it wasn't done just because the terrorists felt like they hadn't terrorised anyone for a while, Ooh, lets fucking pick the US for no reason!

[D. Scarlatti]

I never had or expressed any such "attatchment", liar.

Give me a fucking break. Please reread the post in which you brought the damn report up in the first place, and what it was in response to.

You are one slippery fucking cocksucker.

[yguy]

I never had or expressed any such "attatchment", liar.

Give me a fucking break. Please reread the post in which you brought the damn report up in the first place, and what it was in response to.

What I cited from the report was evidence, not a conclusion.

You are one slippery fucking cocksucker.

No, just better than most at saying exactly what I mean. I know that poses difficulties for those of you who are determined to discredit me by arguing against what I never said...and my heart bleeds. Really. :)

[D. Scarlatti]

What I cited from the report was evidence, not a conclusion.

Oh I see. Because citing evidence in support of an assertion (or a rebuttal, in the specific instance) isn't by any means an attachment of that evidence to the assertion, nor by any means an attachment to the person making the assertion. Right-O.

So essentially you're either the most disingenuous debater that's ever stalked these boards or a really badly drawn caricature of a troll. Come back LionsDen, we hardly knew ye. All is forgiven.

[Watser?]

Murdering bastards

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

My opinion is that you will find yourself under Sharia law in your lifetime. And it's exactly what you deserve. :)

Well, my opinion is that you have never met a Muslim in your life, don't know shit about the Middle East, have never been there, have never read a decent book about the Middle East, the Arabs, Islam, Iran, Iraq or the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, don't know jack about Europe or European politics and are an all-round idiot. So you can draw your own conclusion what your opinion means to me.

My opinion is also that the Iraq war is unwinnable, that there is not even a definition of what winning it would mean, that there is a civil war going on under the noses of the US troops, that the US troops are not stopping that civil war, are not trying to stop it and are probably making it worse by their very presence there, that Iran and al Qaeda are both growing stronger because of it, that it is a huge drain on the US budget and a giant strain on the US army, that it shows how weak the US really is to all the world and especially the Arab World and Iran, because for all their military power they are not able to seize the initiative and that this war at the very least is taking the US down a notch for the foreseeable future and at worst could be their final downfall.

[Dingfod]

You're wrong, Watser, the US could win in Iraq, but it would involve killing every living thing in the country and many of the surrounding countries as well. And to keep from escalating to an all-out nuclear exchange with the remaining countries of the world the US would have to threaten all of the rest of the world will complete anhilation as well. I expect the ensuing trade embargo would slightly put a crimp in the US economy, but the US would still be the mightiest military power in the world, as long as we could get fuel to run it.

Un, nevermind, the Iraq war is not winnable by anyone with any care about humanity at all.

[Sauron]

Even the Senate [sic] 9/11 report said Iraqi agents had at least two meetings with Al Qaida.

Citation please.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75


Here is the full section that yguy selectively quoted from:


There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

[Sauron]

Thanks. Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.


Basically, Bush was backpedaling on his own administration's line, his Vice-President's statements, and the doctored-up "intel" coming from Feith and the goons at the Office of Special Projects.

[Sauron]

Bush was disavowing the idea that Saddam was a prime mover in the attacks, not that he had no ties with AQ; and if he did have such ties, Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it.

Hmm, interesting sentence. Are you saying that

a) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even if Saddam knew nothing about it

Yes. 9/11 was not just an attack on US territory - it was a declaration of war. Thus, anyone who knowingly supported AQ in any way effectively joined in that declaration.

1. Bad logic. If a country expresses support for someone without sending arms, money or materiel, they have not "joined" any alleged declaration of war.

2. You're also trying to sneak your circular reasoning back into the discussion, and hope no one notices. You still have no proof of Iraq support for AQ. Given that uncomfortable fact, even using your broken rationale above, you still cannot justify Dubya's Iraq invasion.

[Sauron]

What I cited from the report was evidence, not a conclusion.

No, it wasn't. What you cited was carefully couched with "maybe", "there are signs of", etc.

Moreover, Rumsfield also met with Saddam. Given your criterion, the inescapable conclusion is that Rumsfield is in bed with Al Qaeda.

Either that, or your "criterion" is nothing but a propaganda hook that you try to hang your assertions upon, hoping they'll stand up to scrutiny.

They don't.

[Sauron]

Oh, and by the way yguy - the second half the 9/11 Commission's report has been bottled up by Sen Pat Roberts (R-KS). Why is that?

Because the only way that the Coward from Crawford would agree to conduct such a committee hearing was with conditions. What conditions? The portion of the report that dealt with official responsibility, administration failures, and suggested correctional/punitive actions could only be issued AFTER the 2004 national election.

It's been two years since then, and the second half of the report still hasn't surfaced.

How proud you and the other conservo-fascists must be.