0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:11 am
Kara, Good point: this administration keeps repeating their refrain that if the ground troop officers asked for more troops, they would get them, but they're not asking. What's wrong with this picture when the insurgency continues to kill more of them?

Common sense was never their strong suit. Incompetence is.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 11:06 am
An Exit Strategy Bush Can't Ignore
An Exit Strategy Bush Can't Ignore
By Joe Conason
The New York Observer
Monday 28 November 2005

Agitated over their declining credibility, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are answering accusations that they misled the nation into war with characteristic aggressiveness. They're understandably alarmed by the increasing consensus among Americans that they exaggerated and distorted intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

What alarms everyone else - including many members of the President's own party - is that that they still can articulate no plausible plan to get our troops out. Rather than distracting themselves with partisan bickering, the president and vice president ought to seize any opportunity to extricate us honorably from the terrible mess they have made.

Now such a chance has appeared, if only the White House has the wit to recognize it.

The quandary for Americans in Iraq, now that the old rosy scenarios have been discarded, is that both leaving and staying are likely to result in disaster.

If we withdraw, the entire country will be engulfed by civil war, creating a haven for Islamist terror and a threat to regional stability, not to mention a victory for our enemies. If we remain as occupiers, the civil war will continue to expand anyway, attracting support for Islamist terror, draining our resources, and further damaging our army and international prestige. We continue the occupation because of the insurgency, even though the occupation only strengthens the insurgency.

Too often omitted from American discussions of this dismal situation is the widely shared and forcefully expressed desire of the Iraqis themselves - namely that our troops should go home as soon as possible, and that a schedule must be established for their departure.

Last August, the British defense ministry conducted a secret opinion survey in Iraq, whose results have since leaked out. The pollsters found that over three-quarters of the Iraqi public want a timetable for the end of the occupation. Even the Iraqi political parties least hostile to the United States, including those that won the elections last January, want to know precisely when our troops will go.

That broad judgment was ratified again in Cairo last weekend, when Iraqi political leaders met at a "reconciliation conference" under the auspices of the Arab League. Only those who know nothing about public opinion in Iraq were surprised when the Cairo conferees, representing a very broad spectrum of ethnic and religious factions, issued a joint statement that demanded "the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable." (The communiqué went so far as to acknowledge the legitimacy of "resistance" to foreign occupation, while condemning acts of terror against civilians.)

According to the Egyptian newspaper Al Hayat , sources at the conference suggested that the Iraqi leaders want U.S. and British troops to vacate the country's major cities by next May. The premise of that hope is "an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces."

Opponents of withdrawal argue convincingly that Iraq will not possess the military and police capacity to defend itself from the insurgents within six months. That argument is bolstered by the Bush administration's history of false predictions and pronouncements about the rapid improvement of the Iraqi armed forces.

How then can our troops get out without plunging Iraq and perhaps the Middle East into bloody chaos?

The best alternative is a negotiated ceasefire leading to an American withdrawal. Working through the Iraqi government, U.S. officials should set forth a clear timetable for the departure of our troops-in exchange for an end to armed attacks by Sunni guerrillas. Spokesmen for the rebels, including leaders of the Association of Muslim Scholars, have often hinted at the possibilities for such a settlement.

Not all of the insurgents would be willing to participate in negotiations with the Iraqi government or the United States, of course. The force that calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq," led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, aims to install an Islamist regime and in any case prefers a prolonged conflict for propaganda purposes. No doubt the Zarqawi group, which is a tiny minority among the insurgents, realizes that any settlement would doom them.

That is another obvious reason for Americans to sit down and talk with the mainstream Sunni and former Baathist rebels. A looming defeat in the "war on terror" could be transformed into a victory over Al Qaeda won by Arabs and Muslims.

At the Cairo conference last Sunday, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said his government would be willing to engage in talks with representatives of the insurgents. Indeed, he sounded eager. The veteran Kurdish leader told reporters, "If those who call themselves the Iraqi resistance want to contact me, I will welcome them."

Sincere as Mr. Talabani's invitation may be, however, the insurgents are unlikely to accept it without guarantees that he alone cannot provide. Only the President of the United States can propose the initiation of talks about an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and a ceasefire between the insurgency and the Iraqi government - and that is what he should do now.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 12:11 pm
Turns out Bush flat-out lied in his speech yesterday:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/01/embedded-time-reporter/

Quote:
Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces

Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces "primarily led" the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an "especially clear" sign of the progress Iraq security forces were making in Iraq.

Bu$h's version:
Quote:


TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush's description was completely untrue:

Actual Version:
Quote:
I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them.


Sen. John Warner (R-VA) who was also on Anderson Cooper yesterday said "I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you've just put forward."

Full Transcript:

COOPER: You know this is not one of the shows where we take sides. I really try to just look at facts on the ground, and the President in his speech talked about the battle of Tal Afar. And in his speech today, he said that it was led primarily by Iraqi security forces, eleven Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. He used this as compared to the battle of Fallujah as an example of how much better the Iraqis are doing. Earlier, I talked to Time Magazine's Michael Ware, the Baghdad bureau chief who was embedded during the entire battle. I want to play you what he said about the Iraqi units he saw.

WARE: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.

COOPER: Do you think the president was correct in saying that this was an Iraqi victory, that the Iraqis were leading the way?

WARNER: Well, I'll let the commanders sort that out but I - first I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you've just put forward. But you didn't hear him say they cut and run like they did in Fallujah. You didn't hear him say that the Iraqis dropped the arms. He said they were fighting. Now it may well have been that the battle plan was drawn up by the coalition forces, probably the U.S. leading.


Not that I find it surprising, or anything, but I figure some of the Righties on here will be shocked to hear that their prez. lied on Nat'l tv.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 12:18 pm
I wonder if the Bushco people will admit Bush lies?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 12:19 pm
Maybe, Bush(shet) got wrong info from our "intelligence."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 12:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not that I find it surprising, or anything, but I figure some of the Righties on here will be shocked to hear that their prez. lied on Nat'l tv.

Cycloptichorn


Nobody is surprised to see Ware being critical of the war or Bush.

Nobody is surprised to see thinkprogress.org characterize the contrast between what Ware described and what Bush described, as a lie.

And certainly nobody is surprised to see you accusing Bush of lying, Cyclops.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 12:37 pm
So, let me get this straight, Tico: you believe that Ware was lying, and that Bush was telling the truth?

Really? Please clarify your position. As you are one of those who ask for proof that Bush lied on a regular basis; and this would seem to constitue proof.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 01:42 pm
I am shocked to learn that embedded reporters are privvy to battle plans and are granted access to behind the scenes strategery sessions between military leaders of the Iraqi and coalition forces. I am also shocked to learn that a single reporter is able to follow what is going on across an entire battlefield. Ware should be getting a pulitzer for this piece!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 02:35 pm
McG, You are "shocked," because you also believe in secrecy in how this administration operates. This is why this administration didn't want congress to approve the limiting of torture of prisoners.

This is also the reason why the world community doesn't trust the US any more.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 04:05 pm
Quote:
Thursday, 1 December 2005, 20:40 GMT

Bush concern at Iraq 'propaganda'

The White House has expressed concern over reports that the US military is planting favourable stories about Iraq in the Baghdad press.
"We are seeking more information from the Pentagon," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.


The reports, originally carried by the Los Angeles Times, said the Pentagon was secretly paying Iraqi papers to run articles praising US and Iraqi troops.

Many stories are being presented as independent accounts, the paper said.

"We're very concerned about the reports," Mr McClellan said on Thursday.


"We need to know what the facts are," he told reporters.
The US, Mr McClellan said, was "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world, and we will continue to do so".

He added: "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of press."

'One-sided'

Earlier, a US military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj Gen Rick Lynch, appeared implicitly to confirm the reports.

He said that Iraq's most- wanted militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was also using the media

"He is lying to the Iraqi people. We don't lie - we don't need to lie," Gen Lynch said.

"We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction."

The Los Angeles Times alleged that stories about Iraq were written by US soldiers, and translated into Arabic by a defence contractor which helps place them in Baghdad papers.

Although many are basically factual, they only present one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the US or Iraqi government, the newspaper said.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the allegations are an embarrassment to the American military at a time when it is trying to promote transparency in Iraq.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4490324.stm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 04:30 pm
"We are seeking more information..." What a bunch of BS! All they have to do is pick up the phone and ask. Who will refuse to answer the "president?"
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 04:31 pm
Quote:
Two U.S. Allies Leaving Iraq, More May Go

Thursday December 1, 2005 9:31 PM

By WILLIAM J. KOLE

Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Two of America's allies in Iraq are withdrawing forces this month and a half-dozen others are debating possible pullouts or reductions, increasing pressure on Washington as calls mount to bring home U.S. troops.

Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December. If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer.

Japan and South Korea help with reconstruction, but Britain and Australia provide substantial support forces and Italy and Poland train Iraqi troops and police. Their exodus would deal a blow to American efforts to prepare Iraqis to take over the most dangerous peacekeeping tasks and craft an eventual U.S. exit strategy.

``The vibrations of unease from within the United States clearly have an impact on public opinion elsewhere,'' said Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington. ``Public opinion in many of these countries is heavily divided.''

Although the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq dwarfs the second-largest contingent - Britain's 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region - its support has shrunk substantially.

In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries. That figure is now just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave.

In the spring, the Netherlands had 1,400 troops in Iraq. Today, there are 19, including a lone Dutch soldier in Baghdad.

Ukraine's remaining 876 troops in Iraq are due home by Dec. 31, fulfilling a campaign pledge by President Viktor Yushchenko. Bulgaria is pulling out its 380 troops after Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov said.

In his strategy for Iraq, announced Wednesday, President Bush said expanding international support was one of his goals. He also seemed to address the issue of more allies withdrawing.

``As our posture changes over time, so too will the posture of our coalition partners,'' the document says. ``We and the Iraqis must work with them to coordinate our efforts, helping Iraq to consolidate and secure its gains on many different fronts.''

Struggling to shore up the coalition, Bush stopped in Mongolia on his recent Asia trip and praised its force of about 120 soldiers in Iraq as ``fearless warriors.''

At least 2,109 U.S. service personnel have died since the beginning of the Iraq war, according to an Associated Press count. At least 200 troops from other countries also have died, including 98 from Britain. Other tolls: Italy, 27; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, one each.

Underscoring mounting opposition in nearly all coalition countries, a poll published in Japan's Asahi newspaper this week showed 69 percent of respondents opposed extending the mission, up from 55 percent in January. No margin of error was given.

Japan's Kyodo News service reported Wednesday that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet would decide Dec. 8 to allow its 600 troops to stay for another year, but it could decide later to withdraw troops around May.

A British drawdown would be the most dramatic.

Although Prime Minister Tony Blair's government insists there is no timetable and British forces will leave only when Iraqi troops can take over, Defense Secretary John Reid suggested last month that a pullout could begin ``in the course of the next year.''

South Korea, the second-largest coalition partner after Britain, is expected to withdraw about 1,000 of its 3,200 troops in the first half of 2006. The National Assembly is likely to vote on the matter this month.

Italy's military reportedly is preparing to give parliament a timetable for a proposed withdrawal of its 2,800 troops. Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government has said it plans to withdraw forces in groups of 300, but in accordance with the Iraqi government and coalition allies.

Poland's former leftist government, which lost Sept. 25 elections, had planned to withdraw its 1,400 troops in January. The new defense minister, Radek Sikorski, visits Washington this weekend for talks on Poland's coalition plans, and the new government is expected to decide by mid-December whether to extend its mission beyond Dec. 31.

``Some formula of advisory-stabilizing mission could remain on a smaller scale, of course, and our commanders are prepared for several variants,'' Col. Zdzislaw Gnatowski of the Polish army's general staff told The Associated Press.

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, head of the Australian Defense Force, has said about 450 troops in the southern province of Muthanna could leave by May. Australia has about 900 troops and support staff across Iraq.

Many coalition members have pledged to stay in Iraq for all of 2006; at least one, Lithuania, has committed to the end of 2007. And the coalition is still drawing new members, most recently Bosnia, which sent 36 bomb-disposal experts in June.

``We are getting letters of gratitude from the U.S. commanders for our peacekeepers' excellent service,'' said Ilgar Verdiyev, a Defense Ministry spokesman in Azerbaijan, which has 150 troops in Iraq and is one of the few mostly Muslim countries to contribute.
Source
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 04:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, let me get this straight, Tico: you believe that Ware was lying, and that Bush was telling the truth?

Really? Please clarify your position. As you are one of those who ask for proof that Bush lied on a regular basis; and this would seem to constitue proof.

Cycloptichorn


No, I'm not claiming Ware was lying, although I am claiming he is anti-war and anti-Bush. Unlike you and your ilk, I do not throw around the "lie" accusation lightly, especially when there are other explanations other than that he was "lying." In this case it is a miscommunication -- wilful by Ware? -- about Bush's use of the term "led." And Ware is all too ready to split hairs if it will make the Administration and the war effort look bad.

And no, this does not constitute proof that Bush lied. One explanation jumps right out at you, and it is the very one "Lyle" identifies on that thinkprogress.org webpage you linked to:

"What he said wasn't a lie. It is assumed that U.S. special forces will be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President [meant] was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 04:53 pm
"meant" and "truth" has such divergent meanings.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:39 pm
Kara, The page following the title page of Bush's November 2005 update of his evolving plan, sumarized his 2/26/2003 plan.

The following is the earliest of many 2003 articles I found after a quick search on <Bush 2003 Iraq Plan> Clearly Bush has had an evolving plan since 2/26/2003. The November 2005 plan represents the evolution of that plan todate.

www.unwire.com/content/topnews022703001.html
Quote:
Bush outlines plan for post-Saddam Iraq

By Carolyn Polinsky

U-WIRE (DC BUREAU)
02/27/2003

TODAY'S HEADLINES
02/27/2003

Bush outlines plan for post-Saddam Iraq

(U-WIRE) WASHINGTON -- President Bush set out his vision of a "liberated Iraq" in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday night, saying that bringing about a postwar nation without Saddam Hussein would bring hope to the people of the Middle East region and set the stage for a democratic Palestinian state. He declared that "the safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat."
"We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed," Bush said.

"Hussein is a tyrant with ties to terrorist organizations that have weapons that cannot be ignored or wished away," Bush said. "The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities."

Regarding the war's aftermath, he said the United States and its allies would "stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq."

Bush said the U.S. and its allies would deliver medicine to the sick and the government is currently moving three million emergency rations there to feed the hungry.

He promised that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites would be stocked and opened as soon as possible and said the U.S. and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to groups that will give emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

"We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq."

The U.S. would neither choose the precise form of Iraq's new government nor allow one dictator to replace another, but would remain in Iraq as long as necessary to ensure peace, he said.

America has acted similarly in rebuilding other postwar nations, he said. Iraq would be like Japan and Germany, in finding a way toward democracy after a war.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," Bush said.

He opposed the idea that the Muslim culture is somehow different than that of the rest of the world and not open to peace.

A truly democratic Palestinian state could be brought about with "the passing of Saddam Hussein's regime," he said, because it "will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers."

Israel and other Arab states would be expected to support a viable Palestinian state that opposes terrorism. Bush said the United States is committed to helping the two nations to live peacefully side-by-side.

The U.S. president called upon the United Nations to answer the threat of Iraq, using force if necessary, and said one nation alone could not confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council would be severely weakened if it failed to respond to a resolution declaring Iraq in defiance of the body for continuing to harbor weapons of mass destruction, he said.

The military, Bush added, is ready to fight for liberty in the Middle East, and understands that action could be necessary for the stability of the region and safety of Americans.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:56 pm
What shall the USA do about this?

Quote:
Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation by Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein.

Al Qaeda's seven phase plan for world conquest:

Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West get the infidels to make war on Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al Qaedas banner. This phase is complete.

Phase 2, the "eye opening." Al Qaeda does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how it's done. This phase to be completed by next year.

Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade. Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.

Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.

Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (i.e., one government for all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit to Islamic rule. To be completed by 2025.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:57 pm
Above post, last paragraph:
The military, Bush added, is ready to fight for liberty in the Middle East, and understands that action could be necessary for the stability of the region and safety of Americans.

Bush claims the military is ready to fight for liberty in the Middle East. Is this true? If it is, Americans better be ready to stay engaged in the MIddle East for 25-30 years or more at 5.5 billion every month.

"Safety of American?" Let's see, this war is being fought half way around the world; how are these insurgents supposed to come to the good ole USA?

It sure isn't safety for the rest of the world. Spain, Morocco, England, Philippines, and Indonesia comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:59 pm
What shall the USA do about this?

Quote:
A booklet by the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure), believed to be linked to the recent London bombings, declares
the U.S., Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam and lists eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris." Blaming the U.S. for the delusions of these admittedly small groups confers a degree of legitimacy on Islamist extremists and undermines moderate Muslim struggling for the soul of their faith.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 09:12 pm
Now that Bush has been successful in instigating the growth of jihad against the west, how do you think Bush is gonna bring democracy to the Middle East?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 09:58 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Now that Bush has been successful in instigating the growth of jihad against the west, how do you think Bush is gonna bring democracy to the Middle East?

Damn that's silly: blaming Bush for the instigation of "the growth of jihad against the West."

Rumor has it that Bush was not inaugurated until January 2001.

In their 1996, and 1998 fatwahs, http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm [scroll down to find them both], and in their 2004 fatwah, http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00035.html
al Qaeda repeatedly declared war against all Americans and all worldwide non-believers in al Qaeda’s religion.


In its 1996 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.


In its 1998 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
~when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped", Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

~to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.


In its 2004 fatwah, al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.



Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 67, note 78.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The Taliban seemed to open the doors to all who wanted to come to Afghanistan to train in the camps. The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes. While Bin Ladin maintained his own al Qaeda guesthouses and camps for vetting and training recruits, he also provided support to and benefited from the broad infrastructure of such facilities in Afghanistan made available to the global network of Islamist movements. U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78


THE FOLLOWING EXCLUDES "JIHADS" IN IRAQ AND iSRAEL

Note: May19, 1996 bin Laden and his retinue left Sudan for Afganistan

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Terrorist Incidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1996

1996
June 25: Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 and wounding 372 Americans.

1997
---

1998
August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

1999
---

2000
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors.

2001
September 11: The attacks on September 11 kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
October 12: Bali car bombing of holidaymakers kills 202 people, mostly Western tourists and local Balinese hospitality staff.
October 17: Zamboanga bombings in the Philippines kill six and wounds about 150.
October 18: A bus bomb in Manila kills three people and wounds 22.
October 19: A car bomb explodes outside a McDonald's Corp. restaurant in Moscow, killing one person and wounding five.
October 23: Moscow theater hostage crisis begins; 120 hostages and 40 terrorists killed in rescue three days later.


Note: December 20, 2001: bin Laden helps establish al Qaeda training base in Iraq.

Quote:
2003
March 4: Bomb attack in an airport in Davao kills 21.


Note: March 20, 2003: US invades Iraq at the time al Qaeda controls about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northeastern Iraq on the Iranian border.

Quote:
2003
May 12: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.
May 12: A truck bomb attack on a government building in the Chechen town of Znamenskoye kills 59.
May 14: As many as 16 die in a suicide bombing at a religious festival in southeastern Chechnya.
May 16: Casablanca Attacks by 12 bombers on five "Western and Jewish" targets in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead and over 100 injured. Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group.
July 5: 15 people die and 40 are injured in bomb attacks at a rock festival in Moscow.
August 1: An explosion at the Russian hospital in Mozdok in North Ossetia kills at least 50 people and injures 76.
August 25: At least 48 people were killed and 150 injured in two blasts in south Mumbai - one near the Gateway of India at the other at the Zaveri Bazaar.
September 3: A bomb blast on a passenger train near Kislovodsk in southern Russia kills seven people and injures 90.
November 15 and November 20: Truck bombs go off at two synagogues, the British Consulate, and the HSBC Bank in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 57 and wounding 700.
December 5: Suicide bombers kill at least 46 people in an attack on a train in southern Russia
December 9: A blast in the center of Moscow kills six people and wounds at least 11.

2004
February 6: Bomb on Moscow Metro kills 41.
February 27: Superferry 14 is bombed in the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf, killing 116.
March 2: Attack on procession of Shia Muslims in Pakistan kills 43 and wounds 160.
March 11: Coordinated bombing of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, kills 191 people and injures more than 1,500.
April 21: Basra bombs in Iraq kill 74 and injure hundreds.
April 21: Bombing of a security building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 5.
May 29: Al-Khobar massacres, in which Islamic militants kill 22 people at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.
August 24: Bombing of Russian airplane kills 90.
August 31: A blast near a subway station entrance in northern Moscow, caused by a suicide bomber, kills 10 people and injures 33.
September 1 – 3: Beslan school hostage crisis in North Ossetia, Russia, results in 344 dead.
September 9: Jakarta embassy bombing, in which the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia was bombed, kills eight people.
October 7: Sinai bombings: Three car bombs explode in the Sinai Peninsula, killing at least 34 and wounding 171, many of them Israeli and other foreign tourists.
December 6: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 local employees.
December 12: A bombing at the Christmas market in General Santos, Philippines, kills 15.

2005
February 14: A car bomb kills former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 20 others in Beirut.
March 9: An attack of an Istanbul restaurant killed one, and injured five.
March 19: Car bomb attack on theatre in Doha, Qatar, kills one Briton and wounds 12 others.
April 7: A suicide bomber blows himself up in Cairo's Khan al Khalili market, killing three foreign tourists and wounding 17 others.
May 7: Multiple bomb explosions across Myanmar's capital Rangoon kill 19 and injure 160.
June 12: Bombs explode in the Iranian cities of Ahvaz and Tehran, leaving 10 dead and 80 wounded days before the Iranian presidential election.
July 7: London bombings - Attacks on one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 56 people and injuring over 700, occur on the first day of the 31st G8 Conference. The attacks are believed by many to be the first suicide bombings in Western Europe.
July 23: Sharm el-Sheikh bombings: Car bombs explode at tourist sites in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, killing at least 88 and wounding more than 100.
August 17: Around 100 home-made bombs exploded in 58 different locations in Bangladesh, Killing two and wounding 100.
different locations in Bangladesh, killing two and wounding 100.
October 1: A series of explosions occurs in resort areas of Jimabaran Beach and Kuta in Bali, Indonesia.
October 13: A large group of Chechen rebels launched coordinated attacks on Russian federal buildings, local police stations, and the airport in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria. At least 137 people, including 92 rebels, were killed.
October 15: Two bombs exploded at a shopping mall in Ahvaz, Khuzestan in Iran. Six people died and over 100 were injured.
October 29: Multiple bomb blasts hit markets in New Delhi, India, leaving at least 61 dead and more than 200 injured.
November 9: Three explosions at hotels in Amman, Jordan, leave at least 57 dead and 120 wounded.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2025 at 07:21:20