9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:05 pm
Unless you are a Democrat politician, ican, and in that case, whining and pessimism will hopefully secure failure so that they can be elected. Thats what the whining and pessimism has been about all along.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:07 pm
Quote:
Defeated in Iraq, Al Qaeda Migrates to Maghreb -
Next Stop: Europe
David Eshel
http://www.defense-update.com/analysis/analysis_161207_algire.htm

The twin blasts that caused such devastation in Algeria this week posted a grim announcement that an Islamic group, once thought to have been defeated, is back in its bloody business. Poised to extend its ruthless tactics throughout North Africa, it is making the first stop towards its ultimate target - the European continent. *Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, (AQIM)* is becoming a dominant element in Osama Bin Laden's global terror ambition. The attack in Algeria last Tuesday seems clearly linked to the regional strategy of weakening the secular governments in North Afirca, the/ Maghreb/, resuming the 1990s warfare against /Kuffar/ (infidel) institutions, society and administrations.

But unlike in the past decade, these operations are now strategically coordinated with Al-Qaeda central direction, not only in terms of operations, but by distinct policies and international decision-making.

The Jihadist incitement against the Algerian authorities, including mostly via the al-Jazeera shows, usually indicates the trends to come. Algiers was accused by the Salafi forces as "/betraying the Muslim world and associating with French kuffar./" The recent visit by French President *Nicholas Sarkozy* to Algeria may well have contributed to the strikes which came already in line with this incitement.

AQIM emerged in 2006 from the remnants of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, an Islamic group best known in the 1990s for its grisly tactic of wiping out entire villages it considered insufficiently fervent in their religious beliefs. The group was believed to be virtually eliminated by 2001, when Algerian security forces cracked down on their leaders. But last year, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, Al-Qaeda lieutenant *Ayman al-Zawahiri* released a videotape announcing that the group had joined forces with Osama bin Laden. Al-Zawahiri praised the "blessed union," declared France an enemy and urged Al-Qaeda's newest franchise to fight against French and American interests.

Algerian President Abdelaziz BouteflikaIn January 2007, the group announced that it had changed its name to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Soon after, the resurgent group went on the offensive April 11, detonating two car bombs. One car bomb exploded close to the prime minister's office in Algiers, resulting in the death of 33 people and more than 150 wounded. In September the AQIM targeted President *Abdelaziz Bouteflika* himself, when a suicide bomber blew himself up in the middle of a crowd waiting for the Algerian president.

Analysts believe that one of the reasons for the rise in Al Qaeda's terrorist activities in the Maghreb stems from the group's defeat in Western Iraq earlier this year.

On October 22nd, *Osama bin Laden* surprisingly admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complained of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that Al-Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. Two months later it was *Abou Omar Al Baghdadi* the supposed leader of the "Islamic State in Iraq" which is actually Al-Qaeda there, said that only 200 Mohajeroon ("immigrants" in Arabic) are left in Iraq. In fact, Al-Qaeda fighters have been migrating to northern areas of Iraq after being chased out of safe havens in Baghdad and other volatile regions. Sunni and Shia warlords got tired of Americans spinning their wheels, while building up the surge, seized and chased out Al-Qaeda from Anbar province.

Al-Qaeda may have lost its grip in some areas, but certainly has grown into dangerous proportions in another highly strategic environment, creating "clear and present" threat to European nations, which already have a significant portion of unstable Muslim immigrants, an ideal breeding ground for local terrorist and insurgency.

As for their new Algerian venue, the creation of AQIM was not Al-Qaeda's first attempt to establish a branch in North Africa. In 2005, Moroccan security forces exposed and captured a cell of Al-Qaeda operatives. The cell's leaders had close relations with Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi and with other top Al-Qaeda commanders. According to Moroccan and European security sources, they confessed that they were planning to establish what was to be called "The Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arab Maghreb" - and the name as that eventually authorized by bin Laden for the new Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat (GSPC) or Salafist Group for Call and Combat. French counter-terrorist agents are concerned with the group's considerable strategic depth in the Sahara and geographical proximity to Europe. Al-Qaeda's new North African wing threatens to turn the western Mediterranean basin into a live front in the global jihad.

The blowback effect with Algerian fighters, who have honed terrorist skills in attacks in Iraq and are now returning to Algeria with the intention of replicating similar atrocities is boding a somber outlook. It is very much the way the previous generation returned hardened from the Afghanistan experience during the Soviet occupation in the mid-1980s. But not only in Algeria is Al-Qaeda establishing its new stronghold. Counter-insurgency experts said this week that Al-Qaeda Organization for the Islamic Maghreb - the product of a 2006 merger with the Salafist Brigade for Combat and Call, or GSPC - has been franchised to virtually every Arab state in North Africa. They said the networks maintained contact and coordinated major strikes. GSPC has become, as it were, a sort of regional branch of Al Qaeda its mission being to federate all the radical, Salafist organizations in North Africa - Moroccan, Libyan and Tunisian have already joined forces with bin Laden's global terrorist groups.

The Algerian GSPC is led by Abd Al-Wadoud, whose real name is Abdelmalek Droukdal, whom a top secret French intelligence report classified as the main terrorist threat to France and Europe. In fact, never in the past has Al-Qaeda had such a solid territorial base in such proximity to Western states, and it has already threatened to employ this base to attack Europe.

The unification of the North African jihad groups under the banner of Al-Qaeda, the use of the Sahara for training and arms-smuggling, and the number of North African cells discovered in Europe in the past all indicate the magnitude of the threat. "An attack perpetrated by local or international networks remains likely," warned Gilles de Kerchove, newly appointed in September to coordinate counter-terrorism efforts among EU member states, told the European Parliament.

The emergence of a new Al-Qaeda-linked organization in Northern Africa is particularly alarming to Spain, which is concerned about Islamists' calls for the reconquest of the country they regard as a lost part of the Muslim world. "We will not be in peace until we set our foot again in our beloved al-Andalus" an Al-Qaeda leader in the Islamic Maghreb said on claiming responsibility for an attack which killed at least 24 people in Algiers. Andalus is the Moorish name for Spain, parts of which were ruled by Muslims for about eight centuries until the last Moorish bastion, Granada, succumbed to the Christian Reconquest in 1492. The reference to al-Andalus was not the first by Al-Qaeda, which has also vowed to put an end to the Spanish occupation of the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast. Such announcements worry the security services in Spain, where 29 mainly Moroccan suspects are on trial for the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 and injured about 1,800 people.

"Today, the threat posed by this alliance of the GSPC and Al-Qaeda constitutes a heightened threat to the countries of Northern Africa, which have been destabilized and can be destabilized even more, but also to France, which is considered as a priority target∑" said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France's top anti-terrorism judge, in a recent interview. The United States also has long been concerned about the GSPC and is working with Algeria and its neighbors to combat the perceived threat through a program called the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership, worth an estimated $600mn over the next five to seven years.

Al-Qaeda may have lost its grip in some areas, but certainly has grown into dangerous proportions in another highly strategic environment, creating "clear and present" threat to European nations, which already have a significant portion of unstable Muslim immigrants, an ideal breeding ground for local terrorist and insurgency.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:13 pm
okie wrote:
Unless you are a Democrat politician, ican, and in that case, whining and pessimism will hopefully secure failure so that they can be elected. Thats what the whining and pessimism has been about all along.

Yeah! That's true enough! But electing those kinds of democrats will accomplish nothing worth the time, effort and resources of Americans to accomplish. It will only buy Americans worse than what they have now.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:32 am
okie wrote:
Unless you are a Democrat politician, ican, and in that case, whining and pessimism will hopefully secure failure so that they can be elected. Thats what the whining and pessimism has been about all along.


This is just such an arrogant sack of crock I can't believe you really believe it. Do you honestly think democrats want the Iraqis to suffer as they have been since we destroyed their country and continue to suffer just so we can elect a democrat president? Not everything in the world is tied up with the US elections. What about all the other pessimism from those who don't even live in the US? What's their excuse? Are they all just jealous of us. Ridiculous; but typical of your type.

The plain fact is that the violence is down because we have a surge of troops over there doing their jobs. But unless a political success is followed up then this small gain will not make much a difference for Iraqis in the long run. We can't keep most of our resources tied up in Iraq forever despite Ican' fantasies about it for any number of practical reasons.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:13 am
Ican

U R a twit.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:18 am
revel wrote:
okie wrote:
Unless you are a Democrat politician, ican, and in that case, whining and pessimism will hopefully secure failure so that they can be elected. Thats what the whining and pessimism has been about all along.


This is just such an arrogant sack of crock



Very true

Quote:
Not everything in the world is tied up with the US elections.


Also very true: in fact surprisingly few things are. Seen from the outside, there is remarkably little real difference between the parties anyway.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:31 am
revel said...

Quote:
This is just such an arrogant sack of crock I can't believe you really believe it. Do you honestly think democrats want the Iraqis to suffer as they have been since we destroyed their country and continue to suffer just so we can elect a democrat president?


Based on some of the statements and actions by some of the dems in congress, the answer to this is a resounding maybe.

Harry Reid says the war is lost, we cant win.

Other dems say that the surge has failed, even before the surge even started.
We have dems accusing the troops of murder, calling them criminals, accusing them of all kinds of war crimes, yet never apologizing when their claims are proven wrong.
We have dems constantly demanding timetables or they will stop funding the war, we have dems challenging the Presidents constitutional authority as CinC.

Judging from those actions, what else can be assumed?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:39 am
Consider the fact that Congress approved the authorization to go to war, and simple observation of Hillary as an example, she was singing praises of her actions and Bush as long as we were winning and bragging about her vote, such as when we captured Saddam Hussein, but when the tide of events and media spin made it be more politically expedient to claim she was against the war, thats what she does. Obviously she isn't in anything for the long haul, but she jumps on and off a bandwagon depending on if the bandwagon is going her direction or not. So it isn't the bandwagon, or the war, that she is committed to winning, it is her own agenda. Its pretty plain to see, and she is not atypical of many Democrats.

And consider the fact that if the Democratic Party really believes being against the war was obviously the best policy from the start, they would all support Obama, as he has at least been consistent on his stance. A person may not agree with him, but at least he can be respected for being consistent. The same can't be said for others, as Hillary, and this is very obvious to anyone that has observed this for the past few years and wants to be honest about it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:54 am
mysteryman wrote:
revel said...

Quote:
This is just such an arrogant sack of crock I can't believe you really believe it. Do you honestly think democrats want the Iraqis to suffer as they have been since we destroyed their country and continue to suffer just so we can elect a democrat president?


Based on some of the statements and actions by some of the dems in congress, the answer to this is a resounding maybe.

Harry Reid says the war is lost, we cant win.

Other dems say that the surge has failed, even before the surge even started.
We have dems accusing the troops of murder, calling them criminals, accusing them of all kinds of war crimes, yet never apologizing when their claims are proven wrong.
We have dems constantly demanding timetables or they will stop funding the war, we have dems challenging the Presidents constitutional authority as CinC.

Judging from those actions, what else can be assumed?


I don't think the Democrats specifically want the Iraqis to suffer. I think the Democrats want to see George W. Bush and the Republicans suffer and, if really crappy news from Iraq seems to accomplish that, I think most Democrats are secretly smug and happy about it. This is emphasized in that you rarely hear a Democrat praising the efforts of the troops and their accomplishments, but any bad news is immediately spoken into the closest available media microphone. If they can't find any bad news in the newspaper on any given day, I think many have no conscience about making some up.

I think concern for the Iraqis is absolutely at the bottom of the barrel in the politics designed to embarrass and defeat the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:06 am
Quote:
I think concern for the Iraqis is absolutely at the bottom of the barrel in the politics designed to embarrass and defeat the Republicans.


Which Iraqis are you referring to? The one's still alive, many still unmaimed of course even if they can't live where they used to live due to ethnic cleansing.

Or do you refer to the hundred thousand dead?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:13 am
blatham, are you supporting Obama? If you are against the war, then you surely cannot support Hillary, can you?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:13 am
Oh, you mean the 'collateral,' Blatham. Naturally, they don't count.

I find it amazing that those who constantly and consistently downplay the importance of civilian casualties could ever accuse anyone else of not caring about Iraqis. Their entire gameplan revolves around the idea that a certain number of them are sacrificial, if it ensures our safety.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:14 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I think concern for the Iraqis is absolutely at the bottom of the barrel in the politics designed to embarrass and defeat the Republicans.


Which Iraqis are you referring to? The one's still alive, many still unmaimed of course even if they can't live where they used to live due to ethnic cleansing.

Or do you refer to the hundred thousand dead?


Hundred thousand, or is it one million?
Depending on which left winger is talking, the number of Iraqi dead is anywhere in that range.

I noticed though that you didnt deny anything foxfyre said.
Could it be that you agree with it?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:20 am
I was for the war in Afghanistan because it was a just war I didn't want that war to defeat to defeat George Bush.

The Iraq war was based on lies and misleading statements shoved down the throats of the rest of the world by the administration. They have flubbed up for five years and the Iraq country is destroyed no matter how much you people like to believe otherwise. There is no political success and there won't be any. Those are just undeniable facts and it don't matter what democrats motives are in saying them.

I would like some examples of people on this thread making up facts to show a negative picture of Iraq. If none can be shown; then the accusations are just a bunch of nothing from a party which has shown themselves to be full of empty braggarts.

However; the question of what about those outside the US who have been full of negative comments about Iraq. What are their reasons or motives?

I honestly do care about the state of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:24 am
revel wrote:


I honestly do care about the state of Iraq.


Then why arent you over there trying to do some good and help the Iraqi people?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:25 am
mysteryman wrote:
revel wrote:


I honestly do care about the state of Iraq.


Then why arent you over there trying to do some good and help the Iraqi people?


I don't think they need us over there doing anything for them. I think our presence hurts as much as it helps.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:42 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
revel wrote:


I honestly do care about the state of Iraq.


Then why arent you over there trying to do some good and help the Iraqi people?


I don't think they need us over there doing anything for them. I think our presence hurts as much as it helps.

Cycloptichorn


There are several international aid organizations in Iraq right now.
They can always use volunteers.
If you or anyone else truly thought the Iraqi people were in such a desperate situation, you would find a way to go to Iraq and volunteer.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:44 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
revel wrote:


I honestly do care about the state of Iraq.


Then why arent you over there trying to do some good and help the Iraqi people?


I don't think they need us over there doing anything for them. I think our presence hurts as much as it helps.

Cycloptichorn


There are several international aid organizations in Iraq right now.
They can always use volunteers.
If you or anyone else truly thought the Iraqi people were in such a desperate situation, you would find a way to go to Iraq and volunteer.


I don't think that foreigners in Iraq, whether they be the US army or anyone else, are helping the overall situation there at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 11:23 am
Here's a story about a small mutiny in Iraq.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003686058&imw=Y

It doesn't surprise me that something like this happened. What did surprise me are the comments about this on the Military Times Forum. There is an awful lot of anti-war sentiment here.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1561126


*
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 11:27 am
I think some of the soldiers are beginning to realize that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with security in the US. About time!~
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 0.05 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 07:49:52