Yes, you are right. Saddam was a secular militant (he thought of himself as divine). Bin Ladin touts Islamic fundamentalism.
There are secular leaders, including that liar Chalabi. And just because they turn to religeous leaders in a time of trouble does not mean that fundamentalism is the norm. During the civil right's movement MLK was a religeous leader, but not a fundamentalist. Most of the Imam's including the top ones have been urging peace. It's true that many fundamentalists have entered the country since Saddam has gone, are trying to target troops and Iraqis who cooperate with Americans. They are able to enter now because Saddam is gone. Saddam ruled with a heavy fist, and he did not tolerate any sort of fundamentalism. What fundamentalism did exist in Iraq before was covert. The streets now are far less safe than they were under Saddam. People can no longer go out after dark, and kidnappings are at an all time high. I'm not trying to say that we should have left Saddam in, just that there are real dangers and problems that people in Iraq face. These problem are new, and they may cause some resentment towards the foreign force who's running things. I'm glad that Saddam is gone, and believe there may be a chance for real betterment for the Iraqi people.
thomas friedmann had an interesting thought about this last week. he said the biggest change so far has been in Israel, where the removal of Iraq as a threat has cut the legs out from under one of Likud's biggest arguements for keeping the occupied territories- the need for a buffer zone because of the the threat of Iraq invading through Jordan. so, would peacein the middle east count as a "ripple that will be felt for decades?" At the same time, in my mind nothing but finding LARGE stockpiles of WMDs will justify this war. [/B][/QUOTE] really? nothing? how about this? not saying it's true, and i know bush didn't cite it as justification for the war, but i'd have to say, it sure would remove most rational people's doubts. btw, when's the due date?
First of all, you or I do not know for sure what is going on in Iraq. We only hear what the Bush Admin and the press are saying. But to state that Iraqi Islamic Fundamentalism is a major factor in the attacks on our troups goes against what the Bush Admin is saying and what the press is reporting. They both are saying that Saddam loyalists and non-Iraqi Islamic foundamentalist, terrorist groups are to blame. IIRC it is in the Sunni Triangle where most of the terrorist actions is happening. If the fundamentalist Shiites in the South openly revolted, the proverbial sh*t would hit the fan.
I'm sorry, but you're being an idiot. At least wait 11 months, when the results are in. You need a new thinkin' cap. Chill dude.
That is the biggest piece of wishful thinking I have seen in a long time. This particular piece of "intelligence" has been debunked so many times that it is hard to count them all (and I was a math major for a while). Atta was in Florida when this meeting supposedly took place. It is documented. The official date is the 28th, but the doctor has said that there is very little chance of it going that far since Aidan is pretty big. At the 31 week ultrasound, he was 4.5 pounds and he has only gotten bigger since then (duh!). We think the doctor will probably want to induce no later than early next week, but labor could literally begin anytime.
. it's not intelligence, the memo exists. the doubts are about its veracity. and this particular one you've not heard- this is new. as to Atta's whereabouts at the time, you're confusing your dates. this meeting took place in the summer 2001. the ealier reports of atta's being in florida during the prague meetings has also been proven false. see this article in Slate, quoted below: "In Washington, the FBI moved to quiet the Prague connection by telling journalists that it had car rentals and records that put Atta in Virginia Beach, Va., and Florida close to, if not during, the period when he was supposed to be in Prague. The New York Times, citing information provided by "federal law enforcement officials," reported that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 2, 2001, and by April 11, "Atta was back in Florida, renting a car." Newsweek reported that, "the FBI pointed out Atta was traveling at the time [in early April 2001] between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va.," adding, "The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts." And intelligence expert James Bamford, after quoting FBI Director Robert Mueller as saying that the FBI "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on," reported in USA Today, "The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague." All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license. His international license was at his father's home in Cairo, Egypt (where his roommate Marwan al-Shehhi picked it up in late April). Nor were there other records in the hands of the FBI that put Atta in the United States at the time. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, "It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague." Clearly, it was not beyond the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers to use aliases. "
