0
   

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

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:04 pm
June 13, 2005
Middle East votes for jihad
Tiny minority of extremists update. "The Mideast casts its votes for extremists," from the New York Daily News, with thanks to EPG:



Winds of Democratic change are blowing through the Middle East - and sending shivers through the White House.

Fed up with corruption and determined to oust governments seen as U.S. lackeys, newly minted voters in key Arab countries have propelled card-carrying terrorists and Islamic extremists into positions of power.

• In Gaza, the militant Hamas organization won 77 out of 118 seats in recent local elections.

• In Lebanon's first vote free of Syrian domination, the Iranian-backed Islamic militant group Hezbollah swept the polls in the southern part of the country.

• In Egypt, the radical and often violent Muslim Brotherhood has shifted tactics and started infiltrating the pro-democracy drive trying to oust longtime President Hosni Mubarak - a key American ally.

"The key point here is that democracy in the Middle East is about anti-Americanism right now," said David Phillips of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In Beirut, Hezbollah spokesman Hussein Naboulsi said they know all they need to know about democracy.

"We don't need America to teach us," he said. "The turnout [at the recent election] was bigger than the elections four years ago. People wanted to say, 'Look, we're against American interference in our affairs, we're against the American project and we will stand with the resistance.'"

The Hamas and Hezbollah victories place President Bush in a tough spot. On one hand, he has championed democracy as a cure-all for this troubled region. On the other, he adamantly refuses to deal with terrorists.

"The problem [for Bush] is that these elections aren't skewing public opinion, they're reflecting public opinion, which is decidedly against American policies in the region," said Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
June 13, 2005
Middle East votes for jihad
Tiny minority of extremists update. "The Mideast casts its votes for extremists," from the New York Daily News, with thanks to EPG:
...

The rest of the article says zero about the titlle of this article: "The Middle East votes for jihad."

The rest of the article merely discusses how so-called extremists are trying democracy instead of mass murder of civilians to get what they want. That's a big improvement! Don't you think!

Quote:
"The problem [for Bush] is that these elections aren't skewing public opinion, they're reflecting public opinion, which is decidedly against American policies in the region," said Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution.

Seems to me that democratic elections are in harmony with "American policies in the region."

Only if after being elected they resort to the mass murder of civilians, can it be truly said they are "decidedly against American policies in the region."

As soon as the terrorists in Iraq take the same approach, the USA can leave Iraq happily.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:33 pm
AMENDMENT -->

Quote:
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.


-->
Note: October 20, 2001: USA invades Afghanistan.

Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:37 pm
ican, Did you know that it's almost 2006? What are you doing posting stuff from 2001?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:03 am
nuther brain fart I imagin
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:48 am
icant, If you are unable to understand simple English in my previous post, Post: 1702346, I'm afraid that only speaks to your ignorance.

You need to go back to school and study English as a language.

This is the key sentence of that article: "Fed up with corruption and determined to oust governments seen as U.S. lackeys, newly minted voters in key Arab countries have propelled card-carrying terrorists and Islamic extremists into positions of power."

That is followed by examples of how fundamentalist Muslims are taking over governments in the Middle East.

All the above is followed by: "Winds of Democratic change are blowing through the Middle East - and sending shivers through the White House."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:11 am
Quote:
Yes, we have opened Pandora's box in Iraq - but freedom has sprung freeSuccess is less tangible. It is articulated not in the indicative but in the subjunctive: potential threats removed; future wars that don't have to be fought. It is numbered in the unenumerable: the slow awakening of human freedom; the steady, incremental spread of dignity it brings to people cowed and trampled for decades.

And yet it leaves its mark in tangible ways, even in the turmoil of Iraq. In a couple of weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls in their millions for the third time this year (the exercise of democracy can be habit-forming, can't it?). This time they will choose a government that will have real power over the direction of the country. It will be a genuine first in the history of a region where medievalist tyranny has enjoyed five centuries of extra time.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, the most powerful living expression of that legacy, the tormentor of his own people and oppressor of others, stands trial for his crimes.

And the success in Iraq, intangible as it is, was never just going to be confined to the country itself. Look at the broader map of the Middle East.

In neighbouring Syria, another unlovely old regime is cornered. The push for freedom that began in Iraq is steadily wresting Lebanon away from its status as a fief of Damascus. The Syrian dictator is feeling the painful consequences of his attempt to halt the spread of liberty by the old fashioned method of assassination.

In Iran, the proximity to a liberated Iraq is alarming the theocratic thugs who run the country and energising their enemies in the rest of the population.

In Israel, the one people in the region for whom freedom is no novelty, will go to the polls early next year. It looks likely that they will give a new mandate to Ariel Sharon to pursue his unlikely mission of unilaterally settling with the Palestinians.

This, the same Sharon who has been demonised by the same critics of the Iraq war, especially in Europe, is breaking the mould, not only in his own nation, but in the region too. He will push ahead, it seems, with a bold strategy in the teeth of fierce irredentism from the Right, that could result in a Palestinian state on more than 90 per cent of the West Bank and the whole of Gaza, perhaps even with a part of Jerusalem as its capital.

This may not be a direct outcome of the Iraq war, but does anyone really think it would have been possible while Saddam Hussein was actively promoting Palestinian terrorism? The critics of the war were right to say three years ago that it represented the high-risk option. There's no doubt, as they said at the time, that not invading would have been the safer option. But over time, repeatedly exercising the easy option rarely produces long-term stability. By repeatedly deferring difficult decisions, repeatedly seeking accommodations with an ever more unacceptable status quo, we make the ultimate crisis that much larger, its consequences that much more devastating. The fluid of all those easy decisions crusts eventually into a hard carapace that can only be cracked with explosive force.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:01 pm
When Will We Fight New Shiite Army We're Building in Iraq?
When Will We Fight The New Shiite Army We're Building in Iraq?
Cenk Uygur
12.02.2005

We do the damnedest things. We sell weapons to Saddam in the 1980's and then we turn around and invade Iraq in 2003 because we think he might still have those weapons. We build up a tough Muslim army in Afghanistan in the 1980's to fight the Russians and we wind up invading Afghanistan in 2001 to fight that same Muslim force ourselves.

And now for the latest installment, we build up a Shiite army in Iraq only to fight them ...

You can fill in the blank. I'm not sure when we will go to war with the army we are so vigorously training right now in Iraq. But if history is any judge, what is certain is that we will fight them at some point.

Outside of historic generalities, there is ample reason to believe that there are specific reasons why we are likely to fight this Iraqi army. First, the so-called Iraqi army we're training right now is comprised mainly of Shiites and Kurds. They are fighting the Sunni insurgency, so the presence of Sunnis in the Iraqi army is limited and mostly for show.

Soon, the Kurds will split off into their own country and take their soldiers with them. If you asked the Kurds in the Iraqi army whether they would side with the new government of Iraq or with an independent Kurdistan in case of a conflict, you would have approximately three Kurds who would remain loyal to the Iraqi government. The rest of the peshmarga (the 100,000 strong Kurdish militia) would thank us very much for the extra training and weapons and go fight for something they actually believe in.

If you think I'm wrong and you think that the Kurds will remain loyal to a country where they would be a significant minority, then how do you explain the oil deal they announced this week? They've agreed to a separate oil exploration deal with a Norwegian company, without consulting the central Iraqi government or getting their consent. Do you think they're going to share the revenues from that deal with the rest of Iraq?

I hope you're not that naïve. But if you are, the prime minister of the Northern Kurdish regime will disabuse you of that notion real quick. Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani explains, "there is no way Kurdistan would accept that the central government will control our resources." Well, there you have it then.

So, that leaves the Shiites, who are the only people invested in this current government because they are the only ones who would have true power in this "democracy." They have 60% of the population. They can win every election and make every decision by themselves. Power sharing is a wonderful ideal, so was communism. Except it turns out people don't work to the according to their abilities and take according to their needs -- they take as much as possible for their own good. And they also don't voluntarily give up power or oil revenue to a different ethnicity, especially one that has been oppressing them for centuries.

The minute we leave Iraq, the Shiites are going to take everything. The Sunnis will be powerless to stop them. Why do you think they're using force now? It's because they don't have any other bargaining chips. They are a permanent minority, they have almost no oil in their territory and they are disfavored by the US. They have no other means of acquiring power other than through the use of force.

So, will the new war start when the Shiites start butchering the Sunni minority so that we have to re-invade the country to fight the army we're currently training? Or do you think it will be when they join forces with their fellow Shiites in Iran and support Iran's new nuclear program?

If the Iraqi Shiites work with the Iranian Shiites to build weapons of mass destruction and we have to fight the army we built for them because they have WMD, I think we will have broken the record for irony.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 01:30 pm
Not irony, BBB, stupidity.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:32 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
This is the key sentence of that article: "Fed up with corruption and determined to oust governments seen as U.S. lackeys, newly minted voters in key Arab countries have propelled card-carrying terrorists and Islamic extremists into positions of power."


This "key sentence" says zero about the title of this article: "The Middle East votes for jihad."

Instead it says: how so-called extremists are trying democracy instead of mass murder of civilians to get what they want. That's a big improvement! Don't you think?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:42 pm
DELAY WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED THIS PROBLEM AND DENIAL WILL NOT SOLVE IT EITHER

In its 1996 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
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:
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
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:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00035.html
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.


Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi
www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
Quote:
A summary of Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi July 9, 2005.

The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad.

The war will not end with an American departure.

Thir strategic vision is one of inevitable conflict with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.

Popular support must be maintained at least until jihadist rule has been established.

More than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."

Letter in English at:
www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf


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


Booklet by the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure)
Quote:
… 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 Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:06 pm
icant, You are dense.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 01:29 am
ican711nm-

Your quotes are quite good--Good Research. It's a shame that everyone will not read the quotes carefully.

You may be familiar with the writings of Bernard Lewis, Ican.

He is the foremost US interpreter of Islam who has written extensively about Islam. Lewis points out that Islam on the whole is a beneficent Religion but that the fringe radicals do indeed believe in the re-establishment of the Caliphate which, in their eyes, would entail the submission of the entire world to the doctrine of Allah- Islam.

It's a pity that more people do not understand the meanings of your quotes or the explanations given by Lewis.

We are at war with a group which is, although not possessing the Luftwaffe or the V-2 Rocket, may be as dangerous since, like the Japanese Kamakazi, they are willing to act as human bombs.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 02:23 am
ican711nm wrote:
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.


So the agency that is responsible for 9/11 would be a government power, with citizens who openly support it?

Puts me in the mood for a good old-fashioned Hiroshima-style barbeque. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 02:32 am
Re: US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0
Oops.....

Quote:
From the Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 book of the year:

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-234819

"The war in Iraq continued to take an extraordinary toll on archaeological sites in the cradle of civilization. Despite the adoption in 2003 of UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which banned the trade in looted Iraqi antiquities, a lawless environment and weak border controls fomented the continued plundering of archaeological sites. Particularly hard hit were numerous 5,000-year-old Sumerian city-states--among them Umma, Isin, Adab, Zabalam, and Shuruppak--in the southern Iraqi province of Dhi Qar. Further destruction of sites came as a direct result of the war, such as the installation of a U.S. military base atop the remains of the ancient city of Babylon. The collapse of substantial portions of the Babylonian temples of Nabu and Ninmah, which dated to the 6th century BC, was attributed to helicopter activity."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 10:31 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
icant, You are dense.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 11:27 am
Mortkat wrote:
ican711nm-

Your quotes are quite good--Good Research. It's a shame that everyone will not read the quotes carefully.
Thank you.

You once asked me something like: Do I understand the left's mentality or motivation. My answer is: I have my hypotheses about that just like you do. However, I'm disinclined to discuss these hypotheses of mine here. Rather my self-imposed mission here is to deny them the excuse "but nobody told me" when they eventually are confronted with the overwhelming reality of the falsity of their doctrines.


You may be familiar with the writings of Bernard Lewis, Ican.

He is the foremost US interpreter of Islam who has written extensively about Islam. Lewis points out that Islam on the whole is a beneficent Religion but that the fringe radicals do indeed believe in the re-establishment of the Caliphate which, in their eyes, would entail the submission of the entire world to the doctrine of Allah- Islam.

Yes, I read Lewis's "What Went Wrong" plus an article or two he wrote in the WSJ.

It's a pity that more people do not understand the meanings of your quotes or the explanations given by Lewis.

More is the pity that they do not want to understand these things.

We are at war with a group which is, although not possessing the Luftwaffe or the V-2 Rocket, may be as dangerous since, like the Japanese Kamakazi, they are willing to act as human bombs.

I agree! 10 to 20 thousand, recruiting, dedicated suicidal murderers of civilians is potentially as big a threat to humanity as the Hitlerists, who murdered millions of civilians, the Hirohitists who murdered 10s of millions of civilians, and the Stalinists who murdered over 100 million civilians.


Abetting that threat to humanity is the widespread, aggressively promoted, damn silly, leftist doctrine that current USA efforts to terminate that suicidal murderous threat are its causes.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 11:42 am
oralloy wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
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.


So the agency that is responsible for 9/11 would be a government power, with citizens who openly support it?

Puts me in the mood for a good old-fashioned Hiroshima-style barbeque. Twisted Evil


Surprised Yes, but please don't attribute any of this plan to me. Sad

Book:Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation by Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein.
Quote:
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
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 12:52 pm
Of the 23 whereases (i.e., reasons) Congress gave in its resolution, “Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,” these following six subsequently verified reasons were sufficient reasons for invading Iraq:

Quote:
(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:[/color]


Saddam's regime, while lacking government civil control of northeastern Iraq in the autonomous region, was not lacking military ground control.

Quote:
From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ
www.britannica.com
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.


Soon after the USA invaded Iraq, Kurdish military forces with the aid of USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq.

Quote:
"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.


When the USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq, their leaders escaped.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
When the US invaded, it attacked AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] training camps in the north, and the organization's leaders retreated to neighboring countries. When the war in the north settled down, the militants returned to Iraq to fight against the occupying American forces.


By the time of the invasion of Iraq, Ansar al-Islam had grown significantly.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam (i.e., Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

AI [I.E., Ansar al-Islam] is believed to be responsible for several suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, mostly in the north. The first such was at a checkpoint on February 26, 2003, before the war [March 20, 2003].


Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001, 1 year 3 months prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
It [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. He has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991. On March 21, 2003 his arrest was ordered by Økokrim, a Norwegian law enforcement agency, to ensure he did not leave the country while accusations that he had threatened terrorist attacks were investigated.


Obviously, Mullah Krekar was at best an absentee leader of Ansar al-Islam in 2001, since he "has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991."

In the 5 years 5 months from May 1996 to October 2001 (when the USA invaded Afghanistan), al Qaeda in Afghanistan trained 10,000 or more terrorist fighters: an average of about 1,846 per year. In the 1 year 3 months from December 2001 to March 2003 (the time of the USA invasion of Iraq), I estimate a thousand or more terrorist fighters were trained by al Qaeda in Iraq. As of now, far fewer than 11,000 such fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq. Until at least these 11,000 have been killed or captured, one cannot rationally claim that our invasion of Iraq increased the total number of al Qaeda trained terrorists.

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


Osama bin Laden's deputy Turabi had ties to Iraq and through him provided Osama a connection to Iraq. Osama helped form Ansar al-Islam, and Saddam may have helped Osama against the Kurds.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy] reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54


Osama bin Laden’s deputy Zawahiri had ties to Iraq and through him also provided Osama a connection to Iraq.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, note 75.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.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.


More than once, the USA requested Saddam to extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored these requests

Quote:
Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, 2/5/2003
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network... Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

... We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.


While Saddam's regime denied Powell's claims before the UN that the regime was an accomplice to 9/11 or possessed ready-to-use WMD, Saddam's regime never confirmed or denied the USA requested the Saddam regime to extradite the terrorist leadership in Iraq. Instead the Saddam regime ignored these requests.

Because Saddam ignored those two requests as well as Powell's statement before the UN, Saddam's regime as well as Ansar al-Islam had to be removed in order to ultimately prevent Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda from again operating terrorist training camps in Iraq.


By the way, Saddam was planning to re-commence development of WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Quote:
Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Bagdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminate motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerattions, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of feeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 07:31 am
Funny:

http://www.toonedin.com/movies/WhiteTrashXmas.swf

.
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 12:01:31