How does a strategic oppurtunity entail making recruitment more enticing? It seems like it would all be hate driven recruitment directed at us bulldozing our way through Iraq.
Even though he said we are handing the government over to the Iraqi people? I can see this having an effect on some recruitment but not all. By the way, do you have a link to the implication that Iraq was keeping Al queda at bay?
yes, and? it is from the AP, it's not like the Guardian or some other ultra-liberal source. the title of the thread "Invasion of Iraq Has Helped Al-Qaida" is backed up by the first sentence in the article, "Despite losses around the world, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists, and its ranks are growing because of the conflict in Iraq, a leading think tank warned Tuesday." it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist or a "typical liberal" to make the correlation and post the damn story on the Internet. as for tying yourself down to a party, it is trite. I have a friend who is an environmentalist, hates Bush, works for the EPA, most people would label him liberal, but wait a minute, he is against Abortion. My goodness, can it be true, Trader_Jorge, he is not sticking to party platforms and he makes his own decisions for himself.
I'm not I'm quasi playing the fool to get some explanations out. Thanks for the compliment though. Oh wait it wasn't a compliment. Damn I'm dense!
I am sure that AQ is rejoicing that we have taken out Saddam and are further rejoicing that we have treated the Iraqis so badly that many of them want ot fight against us. These actions (prison abuse, killing civilians, etc) have caused some Iraqis to join or look into who would not otherwise have even considered it.
The reason they wanted him out was because he was, according to OBL, " a bad Muslim." But he's been replaced by a Christian ( in their view) imperial power which seeks to detroy Islamic power. SO they're glad Saddam's gone, as he was a bad Muslim and excercised such rigid control that they couldn't gain entry, but now they can, AND they've got an even greater enemy. Their dream scenario is: *Saddam gone. *Rise in Islamic power in Iraq. *Muslims throught the Middle East join Jihad against US invasion. *US committs atrocities that serve as campaign posters for AQ. *Ongoing occupation during which US support within Iraq and globe errodes. *AQ numbers swell. *US leaves and Islamic power takes control. There is a lot to show that the greatest benefactors of our invasion have been AQ and the like. This is among the reasons why so many experts say that the invasion was not only NOT part of the war on terror, but it was counter-productive.
They don't give a damn about what he said. Due to the WMD scandal and his unilateralist foreign policy as well as Israel policy, Bush's credibility with Arabs (not named Prince Bandar) = lower than whalesh-t. That was true before the prison scandal. It is even worse now. Some? There is no more powerful recruiting tool for arab militants than photos of american soldiers brutalizing arabs or blowing up mosques. Somebody with time could come up with 100's. Hell they even found documents after the war that indicated that the two groups were wary of each other.
T_J; asked and answered, but I'll answer it again, and then ask you a question: I am looking at their successes because we are at war with them, and any realist with their head out of the sand examines the gains of their enemy, particularly when our own actiuons have caused/helped same. If what you've done is wrong, you learn, but only if you look at it. If you refuse, you will continue doing whatever is helping your enemy, thus hurting yourself. As the invasion of Iraq is hurting our war on terror, and helping our enemy, I am trying to get as many people to look at it as I can, thus hoping to stop helping our enemy and hurting ourself. This will take repeated notices, because some refuse to look at what we're doing wrong if it means an admission that their particular political leader was wrong, and others simply never woant to admit that they were wrong about anything. Ok, so I answered your question...again. Now here's mine. I dount you'll answer it once. You'll probably straw man at most. You have called my pointing out that Al-Qaida has benefited from our invasion of Iraq a focus on their "success". Fair enough. But if they are our enemy, and this is a success of theirs...why do you support it, T_J.? Why do you support the successes of Al-Qaida?
I'll grant that his quote doesn't make much difference to this report because it would be impossible to guage the effect it had on so many. This event is also to close to the report to have any effect on the numbers. If anything the numbers have skyrocketed since that incident. I'm saying that incident was a driving force because Al Queda sees it as the US coming in and making them selves at home on Muslim land, namely Iraq, to which I don't think they were completley indisposed to under the rule of Sadaam. I really would like to see these because I've seen many documents in complete contrast.
My version of edit err... I'm saying the Initial war was a drinving force... not that incident as in Abu Gharib.
I'll agree with TJ on most of this (although I don't know whether this is analysis is inspired by liberalism or something else). Did anyone else notice in incongruity between the article's conclusion and the details? How, exactly, did the invasion of Iraq help al qaeda? It mentions 18,000 'potential' terrorists, but all of them were trained before Iraq. Also, does anyone believe that's a good number? It could be way high or way low. I recall reading reports of people trained in those camps that did nothing with their training when they left. Wouldn't it have been more to the point if they had mentioned how many people may have joined al qaeda because of the war in Iraq?, yet no mention is made of this in the article. And does one bombing in Madrid really mean that al qaeda is 'fully reconstitued'? Really??? With all of the 'soft' targets in this world, that's it? How about in Iraq itself? Is al qaeda having much impact there? Where we have hundreds of thousands of Americans, yet most of the bombs are now killing Iraqis. Granted, some or many of these bombs may not even be al qaeda, yet that would also beg the question: why not?. And how did they come to the conclusion that aq now has a 'new and effective modus operandi'? Again, based on the 1 single solitary bombing? Sorry, but this analysis, or at least the summarization of it for the article, smells.
I don't think it's a stretch to believe an active, polarizing conflict will strengthen partisan beliefs -- whether anti-US or pro Muslim or otherwise. This helps Al Queda. The hope, i think, is that this is short term. That success -- through a viable, democratic, economically prosperous Iraq -- will have a long term, much more significant impact. It remains to be seen whether Team Bush can deliver.
Well, the two highest ranking members of Al Qaeda in captivity have denied it for one. http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/iraq/816.html And Bin Laden has regularly denounced Saddam's ba'th party as infidels. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/ And Saddam apparently was wary of cooperating with Jihadists even AFTER he was living in a spiderhole: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/14/sprj.nirq.saddam.jihadists/ And that's just a quick look. That doesn't even consider the circumstantial evidence, primarily that opposing secular arab leaders like Saddam or the House of Saud are among Al Qaeda's primary raison d'etre...it's Ayman Al Zawahiri's calling card.
Originally posted by bnb I don't think it's a stretch to believe an active, polarizing conflict will strengthen partisan beliefs -- whether anti-US or pro Muslim or otherwise. This helps Al Queda. It's a theory. The hope, i think, is that this is short term. That success -- through a viable, democratic, economically prosperous Iraq -- will have a long term, much more significant impact. That's what I was getting to and obviously, what I agree with. How much of this effect may dampen any effect of the previous theory? How many people are disuaded from joining the ranks of terrorists when the understand the lengths the US will go to defend herself? As many? Less? I've seen no numbers; you? It remains to be seen whether Team Bush can deliver. Agreed. All evidence (re Team Bush) seems to the contrary. If they find success, it will be because they tripped over it.
Let's hope they were nothing but Terrorist fantasy camps. I got bin Laden's autograph, a bullet casing, and a picture.
T_J, your attempted answers to Macbeth's questions were an attack on his motivations???? Why don't you just answer the question instead of attacking everyone? So what are your responses to the above questions? T_J, as you said to MacBeth, I eagerly await your answer . . . .
I think the orders were pretty hush hush. That said, I can see why the 2 leaders would want to remain quite about it. The second link...I'd like to see what was actually said about the Baathist infidels... Third link.... this one would be good if it had stronger language than be wary of... Just seems like there should be some better intell on this.... To counter... http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046
