al-Qaida No. 2: U.S. 'Ran' From Vietnam

[Lefty Wilbury]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6GP801.html

al-Qaida No. 2: U.S. 'Ran' From Vietnam
Oct 12 9:16 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam _ and how they ran and left their agents _ is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

Senior U.S. military commanders have said that Iraqi security forces are improving significantly and some U.S. forces could return home early next year. Yet skeptics have raised concerns about whether such statements simply let the insurgency know how long they must wait for the U.S. to leave.

In a letter taking up 13 typed pages in its English translation, al- Zawahri also recommended a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.

"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri wrote.

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."

The letter is dated July 9, and was acquired during U.S. operations in Iraq. It was written in Arabic and translated by the U.S. government. The Pentagon briefed reporters last week on portions of the document, but the full text was not available until Tuesday.

In a statement, the National Intelligence Director's office said the letter "has not been edited in any way" and its contents were released only after it was clear no military or intelligence operations would be compromised.

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said his committee is reviewing the letter, but he cautioned "against reading too much into a single source of intelligence."

In his letter, al-Zawahri, a Sunni, devoted significant attention to al-Zarqawi's attempts to start a civil war with the rival Muslim Shiite sect, the majority that now dominates the new Iraqi government. Ultimately, al-Zawahri concluded that violence, particularly against Shiite mosques, only raises questions among Muslims.

"This matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue," he wrote.

Al-Zawahri was also critical of the Taliban, which was toppled in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, because, he said, they did not have the representation of the Afghan people. He said students of the Taliban retreated to their tribes.

"Even the devout ones took the stance of spectator," al-Zawahri wrote.

Contrasting that, he saw fearlessness in battles waged in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Al Qaim.

At times, the letter got personal. Al-Zawahri said he tasted the bitterness of America's brutality, noting that his "favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling" during an apparent U.S. attack. His daughter died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

To this day, he wrote, he did not know the location of their graves.

The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

The line is an apparent reference to a phrase _ "hearts and minds" _ often used by President Bush.

___

On the Net:

Read the full letter in English or Arabic on the national intelligence director's Web site: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html

 

[theim]

So now the question to the lefties is: Since you now realize that Al Qaeda is rooting for you to suceed in getting America to pull out, what will you do now?

 

[USMCDevilDog]

Can we just Nuke the mountains around Pakistan or Afghan or some shit, jesus, these guys need to die already.

(nuke thing was a joke, not really serious)

 

[Gunny]

So now the question to the lefties is: Since you now realize that Al Qaeda is rooting for you to suceed in getting America to pull out, what will you do now?

Guess I'll play the AQ #2 role and again point Vietnam. Giap said the American left was one of their greatest weapons. Did it slow the self-righteous asshats down a bit?

Not even. You forget, in the lefty mind, being a live, snivelling coward and retaining no honor is okay.

 

[CSM]

Guess I'll play the AQ #2 role and again point Vietnam. Giap said the American left was one of their greatest weapons. Did it slow the self-righteous asshats down a bit?

Not even. You forget, in the lefty mind, being a live, snivelling coward and retaining no honor is okay.

Not only is that ok...for a lefty it is preferable....

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by GunnyL:
Guess I'll play the AQ #2 role and again point Vietnam. Giap said the American left was one of their greatest weapons. Did it slow the self-righteous asshats down a bit?

Not even. You forget, in the lefty mind, being a live, snivelling coward and retaining no honor is okay.

Originally posted by CSM:
Not only is that ok...for a lefty it is preferable....

Dudes, did you forget to put cheese on your cracker?
Can you look beyond the childish left/right blamegame and grow up for a change? No wonder this Al Zawahri laughs at you people.

Anyone with a remote braincell does realize that Al Zawahri is an insane, sad, megalomaniac, narcistic piece of shit. Save for Al Zawahri himself of course.

This guy has been trying to bring about an Islamic revolution since he first came to grips with the idea that the western culture, that is idolized in so many parts of the world, brings a lot of degrading qualities as well: think prostitution, rampant drug use, drunk people, whatever. How degrading (if at all) these things are depends on your point of view, but that's another discussion.

However, most people can see he - or actually his master, Mohammed Kutu - has a point there. Moral decay seems to be frequent these days. This guy thought that to preserve some basic level of human values, Islam would be ideal to fulfill the role of shared values, that would steer humanity forward. Others think Christianity should fulfill this role, still others believe a secular law should be the framework that keeps society in check by punishing outrageous behaviour, such as thieving or murder.

However, Al Zawahri wasn't paying attention as his cheese fermented to leave nothing but some fungal threads in his head. He believes that in order to persuade the masses to accept Islam as the unifying law, he should have to blow them up. Using suicide bombers.
That way, people would be shocked back into reality to see there is something wrong with society and accept Islam as a guide instead.

He has been trying this shit since the nineties, blowing up stuff all over the Muslim world. From Egypt to Jordan,from Sudan to Whateverstan did not convince the people there to discard the secular law and accept Islam as the framework for shared values to be dictated by law.

Instead of accepting the fact he is insane, Al Zawahari then convinced Bin Laden this was still a great idea, but they just had picked the wrong target. They should put their efforts in bringing down the law in the epitome of western civilization. So then we've had to witness 9/11.

The muslims have not been convinced in over 15 years to accept Al Zawahari's demands, because they refused to accept the terms that would bring them "regime change". Neither has 9/11 succeeded in doing this.

But jet again, the same utterly failing strategy is being implemented, now by the United States of America: bring about regime change by blowing up a lot of things. It's not going to work. It has never worked. It will never work.

Only if you succeed in taking over the country completely has it ever worked, i.e. the colonial times, but most of you seem to agree that should not be the goal in Iraq.

Al Zawahari and Bin Laden are on the fringes of the Islamic world. And yet, these people get to steer foreign affairs now for over a decade already. They keep the Middle and Far East on their toes by spreading fear. And now these politics of fear have contaminated the west, and the west has responded by spreading it around the world.

Afghanistan, Iraq, watch out Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, we're coming for you. Bow down to the tanks and missiles, or be annihilated. We will bring you regime change, by bombing your infrastructure to pieces.
Great. Very mature response. That will show Bin Laden.

So, may I ask you to refrain from this left/right whodunit and look beyond the borders of two political parties to what is actually happening? Cheers.

 

[CSM]

Dudes, did you forget to put cheese on your cracker?
Can you look beyond the childish left/right blamegame and grow up for a change? No wonder this Al Zawahari laughs at you people.

You call us names and then tell us to grow up? I thought you were a cut above that. Guess I was wrong.

Anyone with a remote braincell does realize that Al Zawahari is an insane, sad, megalomaniac, narcistic piece of shit. Save for Al Zawahari himself of course.

And that is exactly why I could give a crap about what he thinks!

This guy has been trying to bring about an Islamic revolution since he first came to grips with the idea that the western culture, that is idolized in so many parts of the world, brings a lot of degrading qualities as well: think prostitution, rampant drug use, drunk people, whatever. How degrading (if at all) these things are depends on your point of view, but that's another discussion.

You are correct. That is a whole different discussion, though I would point out that those things exist under Islam as well.

However, most people can see he - or actually his master, Mohammed Kutu - has a point there. Moral decay seems to be frequent these days. This guy thought that to preserve some basic level of human values, Islam would be ideal to fulfill the role of shared values, that would steer humanity forward. Others think Christianity should fulfill this role, still others believe a secular law should be the framework that keeps society in check by punishing outrageous behaviour, such as thieving or murder.

Enforcing morality at the point of a gun doesn't hold much sway with me...sorry. It doesn't matter which religion, ideology or philosophy you are talking about either.

However, Al Zawahari wasn't paying attention as his cheese fermented to leave nothing but some fungal threads in his head. He believes that in order to persuade the masses to accept Islam as the unifying law, he should have to blow them up. Using suicide bombers.
That way, people would be shocked back into reality to see there is something wrong with society and accept Islam as a guide instead.

Blowing people up as a means of getting them to convert to Islam is a shocking concept...that I agree with; it is also unacceptable

However, he has been trying this shit since the nineties, all over the Muslim world. Blowing up people in Egypt, Jordan and Whateverstan did not convince the people there to discard the secular law and accept Islam as the framework for shared values that should transcend law.

I would agree that the terrorist approach to Islam is wrong.

Instead of accepting the fact he is insane, Al Zawahari then convinced Bin Laden this was a great idea still, but they just had picked the wrong target. They should put their efforts in bringing down the law in the epitome of western civilization. So then we've had to witness 9/11.

One insane man convinces another....

The muslims have not been convinced in over 15 years to accept Al Zawahari's demands, because they refused to accept the terms that would bring them "regime change". Neither has 9/11 succeeded in doing this.

True enough

But jet again, the same utterly failing strategy is being implemented, now by the United States of America: bring about regime change by blowing up a lot of things. It's not going to work. It has never worked. It will never work.

I dunno about that...seems to me that Saddam's regime is pretty much finished. I would also argue that the regime in Afghanistan is a tad different now too.

Only if you succeed in taking over the country completely has it ever worked, i.e. the colonial times, but most of you seem to agree that should not be the goal in Iraq.

Is there any doubt in your mind that the US has pretty much taken over the entire country of Afghanistan and Iraq? I guess the difference is that we plan to give it back to the people who live there IF they decide to quit trying to blow up the US.

So, may I ask you to refrain from this left/right whodunit and look beyond the borders of two political parties to what is actually happening? Cheers.

The left/right issue has direct impact on how the US deals with other countries...or hadn't you noticed? I would also point out that this is a US message board....we can pretty much discuss whatever we want to....

As to what is actually happening, well, I guess that is all a matter of interpretation isn't it. What I see happening is a bunch of religious fantaics trying to impose a medieval ideology on me and mine....and I dont like it, intend to fight them, and will do whatever it takes to make sure they dont succeed

The whole issue of left vs right has great impact on how this country operates both domestically and internationally. The fundamental differences betwen the two have a direct impact on who gets elected, who is in power, etc. maybe you should look beyond your own borders before trying to tell us to grow up!

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by CSM:
You call us names and then tell us to grow up? I thought you were a cut above that. Guess I was wrong.

My bad, just couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by CSM:
And that is exactly why I could give a crap about what he thinks!

Actually, it would be wise to give a crap. If only a little one.
Know your enemy. Makes fighting him a lot easier.
Usually saves you from underestimating him too.

Originally posted by CSM:
You are correct. That is a whole different discussion, though I would point out that those things exist under Islam as well.

I was trying to say these things exist everywhere. But to channel them through law, one could use different sets of law: secular or religious ones.
This does not make them go away, but prevents them from escalating.

Originally posted by CSM:
Enforcing morality at the point of a gun doesn't hold much sway with me...sorry. It doesn't matter which religion, ideology or philosophy you are talking about either.

Then why is enforcing "democracy" at the point of a gun excusable.

Originally posted by CSM:
I dunno about that...seems to me that Saddam's regime is pretty much finished. I would also argue that the regime in Afghanistan is a tad different now too.

Yes, both Saddam's regime and the Taliban are decimated. Iraq is still a total war zone, so we'll have to see what happens there.
As for Afghanistan, the Taliban was merely one of many tribes of warlords, that preach exactly the same intolerance. Sure, they have their little differences, such as that the Taliban was very much against the poppy trade and was stricter than most with regards to women's rights. But now the poppy trade is in full operation once again, spreading heroin across the globe. And women's rights are still a sham, yes they may move out of the house, only to be gangraped by warrior tribes if they do.

Karzai's influence in Afghanistan stretches to about a mile from his house. The rest of the country is being divided between the remaining warlords, and that is where the real power is in Afghanistan today. So it's basically the same, but different.

Originally posted by CSM:
Is there any doubt in your mind that the US has pretty much taken over the entire country of Afghanistan and Iraq? I guess the difference is that we plan to give it back to the people who live there IF they decide to quit trying to blow up the US.

Afghanistan is in the hands of warlords. But yes, the US has succeeded in bringing about a pipeline deal that will transport oil from the oilrich regions at the Caspian Sea around Iran through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean (or Arabic Sea). Whoever controls this pipeline is in for billions in profit.
You may guess who owns it.

Iraq it seems is not under any control at the moment. Save for the Green Zone around Baghdad, the whole country is a total mess.
Besides that, Iraq has no history of blowing up American stuff, save for the British/American gas Saddam blew up in the face of the Kurds.

Originally posted by CSM:
The left/right issue has direct impact on how the US deals with other countries...or hadn't you noticed? I would also point out that this is a US message board....we can pretty much discuss whatever we want to....

Yes you may discuss whatever you want on this board.
I was merely trying to point out this thread was not started with the name "left vs right, bash away" or something of that order.

Originally posted by CSM:
As to what is actually happening, well, I guess that is all a matter of interpretation isn't it. What I see happening is a bunch of religious fantaics trying to impose a medieval ideology on me and mine....and I dont like it, intend to fight them, and will do whatever it takes to make sure they dont succeed

I can understand you wouldn't like that one bit. However, most muslims see an American/European dominated "divide and conquer" game being played in the sands of the Middle East. And they don't like it one bit.
On top of that, they don't see what you are seeing, and you don't see what they are seeing.

I have said Al Zawahri blows up stuff to prove his point.
You have agreed that is insane and stupid.
I have said America blows up stuff to prove her point.
You have said that is for the good of your freedom.

 

[dilloduck]

Then why is enforcing "democracy" at the point of a gun excusable.

Cuase the gun is pointed at the "bad" guys.

Afghanistan is in the hands of warlords. But yes, the US has succeeded in bringing about a pipeline deal that will transport oil from the oilrich regions at the Caspian Sea around Iran through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean (or Arabic Sea). Whoever controls this pipeline is in for billions in profit.
You may guess who owns it.

Is this a bad thing?

Iraq it seems is not under any control at the moment. Save for the Green Zone around Baghdad, the whole country is a total mess.

Garbage.

I have said Al Zawahri blows up stuff to prove his point.
You have agreed that is insane and stupid.
I have said America blows up stuff to prove her point.
You have said that is for the good of your freedom.

Weapons can be used for good or for evil--are you disagreeing with that?

 

[CSM]

My bad, just couldn't help myself.


Ok...

Actually, it would be wise to give a crap. If only a little one.
Know your enemy. Makes fighting him a lot easier.
Usually saves you from underestimating him too.

I obviously was being sarcastic. In truth, if he had not taken the road he has, then I really would not give a crap about what he thought.

I was trying to say these things exist everywhere. But to channel them through law, one could use different sets of law: secular or religious ones.
This does not make them go away, but prevents them from escalating.

No question about that.

Then why is enforcing "democracy" at the point of a gun excusable.

Generally, it is not. However, as you well know, things are not all black and white. If you dont understand that there is a BIG difference between what the terrorists are doing and their goals and what the US is doing and it's goals, then you are less informed than I thought.

Yes, both Saddam's regime and the Taliban are decimated. Iraq is still a total war zone, so we'll have to see what happens there.
As for Afghanistan, the Taliban was merely one of many tribes of warlords, that preach exactly the same intolerance. Sure, they have their little differences, such as that the Taliban was very much against the poppy trade and was stricter than most with regards to women's rights. But now the poppy trade is in full operation once again, spreading heroin across the globe. And women's rights are still a sham, yes they may move out of the house, only to be gangraped by warrior tribes if they do.

I do not believe the picture in Afghanistan is as bleak as you paint it.

Karzai's influence in Afghanistan stretches to about a mile from his house. The rest of the country is being divided between the remaining warlords, and that is where the real power is in Afghanistan today. So it's basically the same, but different.

Nice double speak...are you a politician?

Afghanistan is in the hands of warlords. But yes, the US has succeeded in bringing about a pipeline deal that will transport oil from the oilrich regions at the Caspian Sea around Iran through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean (or Arabic Sea). Whoever controls this pipeline is in for billions in profit.
You may guess who owns it.

A bit of a whine I see. Any other country could have negotiated any deal they wanted. The other countries throughout the globe watched the terrorists being supported (some even helped) by the Taliban. Many of those countries cheered loud and long at every attack on the US. It was made very clear (to me) that the rest of the world really does want to see the US humbled, damaged economically and militarily and even destroyed. I trust no other country (allied or not). The US has been betrayed far too many times by supposed friends. I could really go on a rant here, but will contain myself for the moment.

Iraq it seems is not under any control at the moment. Save for the Green Zone around Baghdad, the whole country is a total mess.
Besides that, Iraq has no history of blowing up American stuff, save for the British/American gas Saddam blew up in the face of the Kurds.

I totally disagree with this. The whole country is NOT a mess, despite what the media would like to portray. As for Saddam blowing up American stuff, it's not because he didn't try.

Yes you may discuss whatever you want on this board.
I was merely trying to point out this thread was not started with the name "left vs right, bash away" or something of that order.

and?

I can understand you wouldn't like that one bit. However, most muslims see an American/European dominated "divide and conquer" game being played in the sands of the Middle East. And they don't like it one bit.
On top of that, they don't see what you are seeing, and you don't see what they are seeing.


Hard to argue that. It is obvious that we have different view points.

I have said Al Zawahri blows up stuff to prove his point.
You have agreed that is insane and stupid.
I have said America blows up stuff to prove her point.
You have said that is for the good of your freedom.

And just where did I say that??? There is no doubt that America "blows stuff up"; the difference is America doesn't target civilians, the terrorists do. I suppose you believe that it is ok for the terrorists to target civilians...and on that we will never agree.

I salute you for sticking to the Europeanist line. I will never agree with it though!

 

[StoptheMadness1]

How many lives does this alqaeda #2 have?

This shadowy figure has been killed or captured multiple times, but still manages to have god-like power.

Do we have collective amnesia or what?

Al zarqawi has also been killed over 9 times, and captured multiple times as well.

I'll tell you what, these guys are magical.

A simple question that may make sense of this little dilema..

Does the military industrial complex make more money if we are there 5 years, or 50 years?

 

[dilloduck]

How many lives does this alqaeda #2 have?

This shadowy figure has been killed or captured multiple times, but still manages to have god-like power.

Do we have collective amnesia or what?

Al zarqawi has also been killed over 9 times, and captured multiple times as well.

I'll tell you what, these guys are magical.

A simple question that may make sense of this little dilema..

Does the military industrial complex make more money if we are there 5 years, or 50 years?

When a #2 gets killed, #3 gets promoted to #2. Then he gets killed----it's pretty simple really.

 

[Harmageddon]

Ok, well, we're getting somewhere.
We basically seem to agree on a lot of things, but there are a few matters that we seem to have a totally different perspective/view on.
Although this is what keeps debate alive, I will still try to seek an even broader consensus of opinion. So there it goes:

Originally posted by CSM:
Generally, it is not. However, as you well know, things are not all black and white. If you dont understand that there is a BIG difference between what the terrorists are doing and their goals and what the US is doing and it's goals, then you are less informed than I thought.

Things are certainly not always black and white, we agree on that too.
I do agree there is a BIG difference between the goals of the USA and the goals of Al Zawahri and the like, and I am full aware of the fact that as Al Zawahri is targeting civilians with suicide bombers, the USA is not targeting civilians, but "insurgents".

However, and this is where we seem to disagree, I do not find it excusable to start a war of agression (i.e. invading a country without an acceptable reason) on Iraq. For besides Saddam, there are 40 million regular people there, that now live in a warzone.

The international community has made a miserable stance on the issue, promising the Iraqi's time and time again things would get better, without delivering. However, your government started this war with the story of WMD, imminent threat and whatnot, which proved to be false alarm time and time again. Now it's being dressed up as "freedom and democracy" while the fighting still rages. All the while, your government's operatives are boardmembers or shareholders of companies that either build bombs or that get first bid contracts for the reconstruction efforts.

Bush's father was a board member of the Carlyle group, America's largest defence contractor, as the buildup to the war was prepared, and Cheney has connections with Haliburton, who's contracts for the rebuilding of bridges were being signed and paid for by the American taxpayers, whereas the bridge in question was still there and had not been bombed.
I mean, WTF is that?

When stuff like that is going on behind the scenes, I find it hard to believe there are sincere goals that go hand in hand with these treasure hoarding efforts. It does not radiate valour in my book.

Originally posted by CSM:
I do not believe the picture in Afghanistan is as bleak as you paint it.

I don't know what it's like, only that it's one of the poorest nations on earth and apparently the only one that has had every modern attack helicopter in the world bomb the crap out of whatever remains; be it American Apache or Russian Hind. That's sad enough as it is.
But who really cares?

Originally posted by CSM:
Nice double speak...are you a politician?

Thanks, but I'm no politician, and wouldn't want to be one soon.
Besides I'm too young and idealistic to be able to be a politician.

Originally posted by CSM:
A bit of a whine I see. Any other country could have negotiated any deal they wanted. The other countries throughout the globe watched the terrorists being supported (some even helped) by the Taliban. Many of those countries cheered loud and long at every attack on the US. It was made very clear (to me) that the rest of the world really does want to see the US humbled, damaged economically and militarily and even destroyed. I trust no other country (allied or not). The US has been betrayed far too many times by supposed friends. I could really go on a rant here, but will contain myself for the moment.

I do not recall cheering remarks about attacks on the US forces there, from any nation. Although I can imagine Kim Jung Il or Saddam making them.
The whole international backstabbing scheme called global politics has damaged everyone, not in the least the US. I do not get the idea that everyone would like to see you crumble. Other than the fact that your president talks like he plans to own the world, with his manly "you're either with us or against us" nonsense. So, what are you saying, you didn't sign Kyoto, so we're enemies? Come on Bush, a bit of nuance there, or we'll start believing you are a real stupid idiot, not just a fake one.

To only focus on how the US has been betrayed would seem like a whine to me. All governments are hypocrits, mine, yours, all and everyone of them.

By the way, you didn't guess who owns the pipeline, so I'll give you a hint:
they are sponsors of your current administration.

Originally posted by CSM:
I totally disagree with this. The whole country is NOT a mess, despite what the media would like to portray. As for Saddam blowing up American stuff, it's not because he didn't try.

Look, I don't know how much of a mess it is, but it's war, and that's usually a mess. I wonder, what did Saddam try to blow up that is American stuff?
I seem to recall that during the first gulf war he didn't even try and stop the American led coalition to liberate Kuwait, but instead threw all the SCUDs he had at Israel and set fire to the prizemoney in Kuwait.
Do you honestly think Saddam was a stupid guy? He was evil, yes, but you don't get to be a dictator if you are stupid. You have to be quite intelligent for that, especially if you want to remain one. Lest you be replaced.

Originally posted by CSM:
And just where did I say that??? There is no doubt that America "blows stuff up"; the difference is America doesn't target civilians, the terrorists do. I suppose you believe that it is ok for the terrorists to target civilians...and on that we will never agree.

I never said blowing up civilians is ok, quote me if you can find it on the board. What I did say is that whether you target civilians directly or start a full-scale war that results in civilian casualties, both actions have more in common than civilian casualties alone.

You didn't say it in so few words, sorry if I put words in your mouth, but I will explain why I read it so. You did say:

Originally posted by CSM:
And that is exactly why I could give a crap about what he thinks!

About Al Zawahri. Why do you not give a crap about what these people think? Because you disagree with them? More so than you disagree with me?
In Al Zawahri's eyes these civilians are "bad" guys, that do not practice Islam in the way he thinks is the just way. Thus the civilians can be sacrificed on the altar of radical Islam, for they are blind, they just don't get it, they will never learn it and it's not really a big loss if they are gone. This is sick, obviously. But you don't seem to care what is behind his actions, what his motives are.
You know, in a courtroom, when the criminal has been found guilty of the charges laid before him, the judge will always ask why he orshe did commit the crime. Your words seemed to say:
Why bother? The guy is evil, it doesn't matter why he did it, next case please.

To me that seems utterly wrong.
You should always have to find out what the motives are behind the crime, for how will you prevent them from happening in the future otherwise?

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by dilloduck:
1. Cuase the gun is pointed at the "bad" guys.
2. Is this a bad thing?
3. Garbage.

Ok, so we've got two non arguments, and one question.
To answer the question, yes it is a bad thing.
It's called a "conflict of interest". (note emphasis)
On the one hand, G.W.Bush is your president, so he should be doing things that help progress your country, be it economically, internationally, structurally, environmentally or whatever.
On the other hand he's got these people in the oil business that invested in him. They expect a profitable return.

Therein seems to lie the quagmire of your current administration.
Because the war in Iraq has been sold to be in the interest of the American public's safety, but it seems to be more in the interest of the oil companies that do not so much want to posess the oil as to control the flow of it.

That seemed to be also the case in Afghanistan. Although it did harbour Bin Laden and thus after 9/11 it seemed logical to invade that country to get this guy, it ended up in not capturing him but negotiating a pipeline deal instead.

What is the interest of the American public in that pipeline? In Iraq?
Has the price of gas/oil gone down in the meantime?

I'm saying conflicts of interest can lead to potentially disastrous consequences. Every action you take shall be a choice between the two.
And you would want to keep both sides happy.

 

[CSM]

Ok, well, we're getting somewhere.
We basically seem to agree on a lot of things, but there are a few matters that we seem to have a totally different perspective/view on.
Although this is what keeps debate alive, I will still try to seek an even broader consensus of opinion. So there it goes:


Things are certainly not always black and white, we agree on that too.
I do agree there is a BIG difference between the goals of the USA and the goals of Al Zawahri and the like, and I am full aware of the fact that as Al Zawahri is targeting civilians with suicide bombers, the USA is not targeting civilians, but "insurgents".

However, and this is where we seem to disagree, I do not find it excusable to start a war of agression (i.e. invading a country without an acceptable reason) on Iraq. For besides Saddam, there are 40 million regular people there, that now live in a warzone.

As we have already stated in previous discussions, we will never agree on this. I do not see the US actions in Iraq as an illegal invasion of a foreign country but rather a resumption of hostilities based on Iraq's non compliance with a cease fire. Those 40 million people who live there were dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell, so I do not have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

The international community has made a miserable stance on the issue, promising the Iraqi's time and time again things would get better, without delivering. However, your government started this war with the story of WMD, imminent threat and whatnot, which proved to be false alarm time and time again. Now it's being dressed up as "freedom and democracy" while the fighting still rages. All the while, your government's operatives are boardmembers or shareholders of companies that either build bombs or that get first bid contracts for the reconstruction efforts.

First, see my comments above. Second, Halburton did not have ANY input into the plan for military action in Iraq. I happen to know that because I was involved (in minor way) in that planning. I suppose the Netherlands has NO defense contractors that profit in any way from any thing....which is why they are NOT a world power.

Bush's father was a board member of the Carlyle group, America's largest defence contractor, as the buildup to the war was prepared, and Cheney has connections with Haliburton, who's contracts for the rebuilding of bridges were being signed and paid for by the American taxpayers, whereas the bridge in question was still there and had not been bombed.
I mean, WTF is that?

Halburton is involved in a lot more than bridge building. I suppose that US companies should have offered their survices for free or at non profit levels. I am glad they did not. Of course, I dont see any other countries or their defens contractors (with their superior morals)rushing in there offering their help for free...could it be because there is no profit in it? they were all pretty active BEFORE the US got in there and they were not working for free then either.

When stuff like that is going on behind the scenes, I find it hard to believe there are sincere goals that go hand in hand with these treasure hoarding efforts. It does not radiate valour in my book.

The underhanded actions of the US's supposed Allies prior to the action taken by the US in Iraq speaks volumes about the sincerity, valor and honor of the EU and other countries. Not to mention the whole UN treachery (Oil for Food scandal ring a bell?) As I said, I dont trust any of them and firmly believe that most nations on this planet are either active enemies of the US or abetting those who are....

I don't know what it's like, only that it's one of the poorest nations on earth and apparently the only one that has had every modern attack helicopter in the world bomb the crap out of whatever remains; be it American Apache or Russian Hind. That's sad enough as it is.
But who really cares?

I started to care when they began to harbor terrorists. You Europeans say that stuff now, but where you before all this happened. Hell, Europe couldn't be bothered with Bosnia, never mind Afghanistan. You dont want the US running around unilaterally invading their perceived enemies, then you better make sure that people are not perceived as enemies...simple really. I firmly believe that Europeans in general love seeing the United States under constant attack and just can't wait for the US to fail....we already know for a fact that France, Germany and others actively helped Saddam avoid compliance with sanctions and were actively helping Saddam prior to any military action by the US

Thanks, but I'm no politician, and wouldn't want to be one soon.
Besides I'm too young and idealistic to be able to be a politician.

Agreed

I do not recall cheering remarks about attacks on the US forces there, from any nation.

Do you live in a cave???? It was all over television and in the press...

Although I can imagine Kim Jung Il or Saddam making them.
The whole international backstabbing scheme called global politics has damaged everyone, not in the least the US. I do not get the idea that everyone would like to see you crumble.

Obviously (as you said) you do not see the things I see.

Other than the fact that your president talks like he plans to own the world, with his manly "you're either with us or against us" nonsense. So, what are you saying, you didn't sign Kyoto, so we're enemies? Come on Bush, a bit of nuance there, or we'll start believing you are a real stupid idiot, not just a fake one.

Kyoto has nothing to do with it. Europe has showed itself to be an unreliable ally at best...they sure as hell are not looking out for US interests. To you, the phrase "for us or against us" is nonsense...for me much much less so, especially after hearing the rhetoric from European leaders.

To only focus on how the US has been betrayed would seem like a whine to me. All governments are hypocrits, mine, yours, all and everyone of them.

Obviously, that is not my sole focus, however, I refuse to ignore it. The problem has been it has gone on long enough to really hurt the US because we have not scrutinized the intentions of forieg governments closely enough...and I dont mean just Europe either.

By the way, you didn't guess who owns the pipeline, so I'll give you a hint:
they are sponsors of your current administration.

Again...so what? Europeans are angry becuase they were not cut in on the deal...tough cookies. They were in there making money hand over fist prior to the war....and against UN sanctions and the best interests of the US....

Look, I don't know how much of a mess it is, but it's war, and that's usually a mess. I wonder, what did Saddam try to blow up that is American stuff?
I seem to recall that during the first gulf war he didn't even try and stop the American led coalition to liberate Kuwait, but instead threw all the SCUDs he had at Israel and set fire to the prizemoney in Kuwait.

Oh. I guess all those tanks and bunkers and infantry all along the Kuwait and Saudi border were there for decoration? You really need to go back and re look that. There were some pretty large battles in the first operation. By the way, Saddam and his cronies burned the oil field AFTER it was apparent they would have to withdraw from Kuwait. there is no doubt he would have kept them if he could have.

Do you honestly think Saddam was a stupid guy? He was evil, yes, but you don't get to be a dictator if you are stupid. You have to be quite intelligent for that, especially if you want to remain one. Lest you be replaced.

and replaced he was...so yeah I think he was pretty stupid.

I never said blowing up civilians is ok, quote me if you can find it on the board. What I did say is that whether you target civilians directly or start a full-scale war that results in civilian casualties, both actions have more in common than civilian casualties alone.

I do not agree with that. They are only in common because civilians died.

You didn't say it in so few words, sorry if I put words in your mouth, but I will explain why I read it so. You did say:

About Al Zawahri. Why do you not give a crap about what these people think? Because you disagree with them? More so than you disagree with me?
In Al Zawahri's eyes these civilians are "bad" guys, that do not practice Islam in the way he thinks is the just way. Thus the civilians can be sacrificed on the altar of radical Islam, for they are blind, they just don't get it, they will never learn it and it's not really a big loss if they are gone. This is sick, obviously. But you don't seem to care what is behind his actions, what his motives are.

I have read and understood very clearly what these people think through their own statements...anything they have to say beyond what they have already said is of no interest to me. I firmly reject their stance, firmly oppose their actions (and yes I have fought "over there").


You know, in a courtroom, when the criminal has been found guilty of the charges laid before him, the judge will always ask why he orshe did commit the crime. Your words seemed to say:
Why bother? The guy is evil, it doesn't matter why he did it, next case please.

To me that seems utterly wrong.
You should always have to find out what the motives are behind the crime, for how will you prevent them from happening in the future otherwise?

The motives behind the crime don't keep the sentence from being carried out. I disagree that knowing the motives will always prevent it from happening in the future. Wars have been ongoing since the dawn of time. I suspect they will continue to occur for the forseeable future. the fact of the matter is that there are evil people in the world just as there are good people in the world. For every Mother theresa, there is a Hitler.

Again....I will never agree with the Europeanist point of view.

 

[Harmageddon]

Fair enough, you've made your point clear.
But I can't help but point out a few more things that are on my mind.

Originally posted by CSM:
As we have already stated in previous discussions, we will never agree on this. I do not see the US actions in Iraq as an illegal invasion of a foreign country but rather a resumption of hostilities based on Iraq's non compliance with a cease fire. Those 40 million people who live there were dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell, so I do not have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

The Iraqi people were in no position to recieve a fair newsfeed under Saddam, at least my guess is most of the news there would have been something like "Saddam saves child from river" and such. I also guess the US was painted in a "evil empire" kind of way, so dancing Iraqi's on 9/11 were most likely dancing because of a very fabricated view of the US.
Originally posted by CSM:
First, see my comments above. Second, Halburton did not have ANY input into the plan for military action in Iraq. I happen to know that because I was involved (in minor way) in that planning.
Fair enough.

Originally posted by CSM:
I suppose the Netherlands has NO defense contractors that profit in any way from any thing....which is why they are NOT a world power.

The Netherlands is way to small to be considered a world power by any standards. That said, my country agreed to the terms set after WWII and has given up ambitions to dominate the world by force, and rather was planning to seek cooperation (the Netherlands was one of the countries that founded the European Union).

Originally posted by CSM:
Halburton is involved in a lot more than bridge building. I suppose that US companies should have offered their survices for free or at non profit levels. I am glad they did not. Of course, I dont see any other countries or their defens contractors (with their superior morals)rushing in there offering their help for free...could it be because there is no profit in it? they were all pretty active BEFORE the US got in there and they were not working for free then either.

I have never suggested your companies were morally impaired to profit from reconstruction. I do put questionmarks at the fact that both the destruction factories (i.e. bomb factories and the like) and the reconstruction factories have strong ties to your current administration, for this makes a potential double profit scenario very likely, which could have grave implications.

Originally posted by CSM:
The underhanded actions of the US's supposed Allies prior to the action taken by the US in Iraq speaks volumes about the sincerity, valor and honor of the EU and other countries. Not to mention the whole UN treachery (Oil for Food scandal ring a bell?) As I said, I dont trust any of them and firmly believe that most nations on this planet are either active enemies of the US or abetting those who are....

Like I have said before, ALL governments are hypocritical in their actions.
The UN treachery was started by the US that pressured the UN to comply. Still it does put a stain on the UN and I agree the UN is lacking spine.

That most nations on the planet are actively or passively seeking your destruction seems a very bleak picture of the world, with which I cannot agree. I for one do not seek the destruction of the US, and I think most Europeans don't. There is great resentment to your government's foreign policy however, but not towards the American people.

Originally posted by CSM:
I started to care when they began to harbor terrorists. You Europeans say that stuff now, but where you before all this happened. Hell, Europe couldn't be bothered with Bosnia, never mind Afghanistan. You dont want the US running around unilaterally invading their perceived enemies, then you better make sure that people are not perceived as enemies...simple really. I firmly believe that Europeans in general love seeing the United States under constant attack and just can't wait for the US to fail....we already know for a fact that France, Germany and others actively helped Saddam avoid compliance with sanctions and were actively helping Saddam prior to any military action by the US

I find this statement rather sad. Again you speak of your fear that everyone on the planet hates you, which is utterly untrue. Then you back up your fear with a veiled threat, to which I would be inclined to say: bring it on. Not to affirm your position, but merely because a threat, veiled or not, results in a downward spiral of mistrust.

I guess the only reason that France and Germany were helping Saddam was because they had running oil contracts with Iraq. Again, quite hypocritical. However, the world has read the Project for the New American Century's documents as well, and they set a course of domination of the Middle East, starting with Iraq. This may very well result in an escalation of the conflict, so a little caution could go a long way, and a potential backlash will be in our backyard, so I can agree with the cautious stance there.

Originally posted by CSM:
Do you live in a cave???? It was all over television and in the press...

Are you referring to the cheers in Muslim countries in the world? That would hardly be surprising now as the most massive army in the world was crushing their "brethren" in the sands of Iraq. They obviously feel more connected to Iraqi's than to Americans, so they take Iraq's side in the conflict.

Originally posted by CSM:
Kyoto has nothing to do with it. Europe has showed itself to be an unreliable ally at best...they sure as hell are not looking out for US interests. To you, the phrase "for us or against us" is nonsense...for me much much less so, especially after hearing the rhetoric from European leaders.

I disagree here, Europe is looking after it's own interest first and that of the world second. As any nation with a brain would do. As your nation is doing. Nothing unreliable there. Instead of forging a deal first and take action later, your government has decided to take action unilaterally and see who's coming with you, counting on a massive European support, since we are closer to Americans in every respect than to the Middle East. As I said, the Middle East is in our backyard however, and a potential backlash after a radical strike is something we did take into account.

Originally posted by CSM:
Obviously, that is not my sole focus, however, I refuse to ignore it. The problem has been it has gone on long enough to really hurt the US because we have not scrutinized the intentions of forieg governments closely enough...and I dont mean just Europe either.

I'm not saying you should ignore it. However, I feel that if you put too much focus on the bad you get blinded to the good things. Europe and America have a history that is more defined by mutual friendship than mutual anger and frustration. Why not focus more on that and build upon it?

Originally posted by CSM:
Again...so what? Europeans are angry becuase they were not cut in on the deal...tough cookies. They were in there making money hand over fist prior to the war....and against UN sanctions and the best interests of the US....

I remain with my point of "conflict of interest".

Originally posted by CSM:
Oh. I guess all those tanks and bunkers and infantry all along the Kuwait and Saudi border were there for decoration? You really need to go back and re look that. There were some pretty large battles in the first operation. By the way, Saddam and his cronies burned the oil field AFTER it was apparent they would have to withdraw from Kuwait. there is no doubt he would have kept them if he could have.

The operation desert storm was a multilateral intervention.
Saddam's army was no match and pretty soon they were running with white flags - highway of death ring a bell? - Saddam didn't really care. He just wanted an excuse to throw SCUDs at Israel.

Originally posted by CSM:
and replaced he was...so yeah I think he was pretty stupid.

This is a non-argument. Although it sounds political...aspirations?

Originally posted by CSM:
I have read and understood very clearly what these people think through their own statements...anything they have to say beyond what they have already said is of no interest to me. I firmly reject their stance, firmly oppose their actions (and yes I have fought "over there").

I have seen video's of Al Zawahri of him making statement in the seventies, the eighties and nineties. From them I would conclude invading Iraq only serves to expand his influence.
I agree with your utter contempt for this idiot, and you have my sincere respect for having fought over there.

Originally posted by CSM:
The motives behind the crime don't keep the sentence from being carried out. I disagree that knowing the motives will always prevent it from happening in the future. Wars have been ongoing since the dawn of time. I suspect they will continue to occur for the forseeable future. the fact of the matter is that there are evil people in the world just as there are good people in the world. For every Mother theresa, there is a Hitler.

I agree with most everything you say here.
One thing however: knowing the motives of the crime does not always prevent a future crime, but they may serve to keep the number of similar equal crimes down. It gives you something to work with, to change at least some persons for the better.

There will never be utopia on earth, we are all humans after all.
But I am convinced we have a lot of work to do before we get to the point where we have to live with the way things are.

Peace mate.

 

[Gunny]

Dudes, did you forget to put cheese on your cracker?
Can you look beyond the childish left/right blamegame and grow up for a change? No wonder this Al Zawahri laughs at you people.

Anyone with a remote braincell does realize that Al Zawahri is an insane, sad, megalomaniac, narcistic piece of shit. Save for Al Zawahri himself of course.

This guy has been trying to bring about an Islamic revolution since he first came to grips with the idea that the western culture, that is idolized in so many parts of the world, brings a lot of degrading qualities as well: think prostitution, rampant drug use, drunk people, whatever. How degrading (if at all) these things are depends on your point of view, but that's another discussion.

However, most people can see he - or actually his master, Mohammed Kutu - has a point there. Moral decay seems to be frequent these days. This guy thought that to preserve some basic level of human values, Islam would be ideal to fulfill the role of shared values, that would steer humanity forward. Others think Christianity should fulfill this role, still others believe a secular law should be the framework that keeps society in check by punishing outrageous behaviour, such as thieving or murder.

However, Al Zawahri wasn't paying attention as his cheese fermented to leave nothing but some fungal threads in his head. He believes that in order to persuade the masses to accept Islam as the unifying law, he should have to blow them up. Using suicide bombers.
That way, people would be shocked back into reality to see there is something wrong with society and accept Islam as a guide instead.

He has been trying this shit since the nineties, blowing up stuff all over the Muslim world. From Egypt to Jordan,from Sudan to Whateverstan did not convince the people there to discard the secular law and accept Islam as the framework for shared values to be dictated by law.

Instead of accepting the fact he is insane, Al Zawahari then convinced Bin Laden this was still a great idea, but they just had picked the wrong target. They should put their efforts in bringing down the law in the epitome of western civilization. So then we've had to witness 9/11.

The muslims have not been convinced in over 15 years to accept Al Zawahari's demands, because they refused to accept the terms that would bring them "regime change". Neither has 9/11 succeeded in doing this.

But jet again, the same utterly failing strategy is being implemented, now by the United States of America: bring about regime change by blowing up a lot of things. It's not going to work. It has never worked. It will never work.

Only if you succeed in taking over the country completely has it ever worked, i.e. the colonial times, but most of you seem to agree that should not be the goal in Iraq.

Al Zawahari and Bin Laden are on the fringes of the Islamic world. And yet, these people get to steer foreign affairs now for over a decade already. They keep the Middle and Far East on their toes by spreading fear. And now these politics of fear have contaminated the west, and the west has responded by spreading it around the world.

Afghanistan, Iraq, watch out Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, we're coming for you. Bow down to the tanks and missiles, or be annihilated. We will bring you regime change, by bombing your infrastructure to pieces.
Great. Very mature response. That will show Bin Laden.

So, may I ask you to refrain from this left/right whodunit and look beyond the borders of two political parties to what is actually happening? Cheers.

Look cheesedick, I don't know what crawled up your ass but could you please quit trying to play the intellectual? I think you're hurting yourself.

The fact is, and I repeat, Giap made the statement that the liberal war protestors in the US were one of N Vietnam's best weapons. Your attempt at deflection is rejected.

I would hardly call an enemy of the US praising a political faction of US citizens undermining the actions of this Nation during a time of war as some "left-right" blame game. If you don't like what Giap said because the truth hits a little too close to home, take it up with him. al Zawahiri is hopeful for the same result, and y'all are trying your damnedest to make it so. And when I see a spade, I'm calling it what it is. If you don't like it, go pound sand.

The only problem possessed by al Zawahiri that i give a rat's ass about is that he is still breathing.

 

[Annie]

Look cheesedick, I don't know what crawled up your ass but could you please quit trying to play the intellectual? I think you're hurting yourself.

The fact is, and I repeat, Giap made the statement that the liberal war protestors in the US were one of N Vietnam's best weapons. Your attempt at deflection is rejected.

I would hardly call an enemy of the US praising a political faction of US citizens undermining the actions of this Nation during a time of war as some "left-right" blame game. If you don't like what Giap said because the truth hits a little too close to home, take it up with him. al Zawahiri is hopeful for the same result, and y'all are trying your damnedest to make it so. And when I see a spade, I'm calling it what it is. If you don't like it, go pound sand.

The only problem possessed by al Zawahiri that i give a rat's ass about is that he is still breathing.

Good call Gunney. Playing at intellectual is all he'll ever be able to do. He's way too closed minded to be any such. He will make a hell of MSM journalist, until the owners decide to get serious though.

 

[Gunny]

Good call Gunney. Playing at intellectual is all he'll ever be able to do. He's way too closed minded to be any such. He will make a hell of MSM journalist, until the owners decide to get serious though.

I heard CBS has a recent vacancy ....

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by GunnyL:
Look cheesedick, I don't know what crawled up your ass but could you please quit trying to play the intellectual? I think you're hurting yourself.

The fact is, and I repeat, Giap made the statement that the liberal war protestors in the US were one of N Vietnam's best weapons. Your attempt at deflection is rejected.

I would hardly call an enemy of the US praising a political faction of US citizens undermining the actions of this Nation during a time of war as some "left-right" blame game. If you don't like what Giap said because the truth hits a little too close to home, take it up with him. al Zawahiri is hopeful for the same result, and y'all are trying your damnedest to make it so. And when I see a spade, I'm calling it what it is. If you don't like it, go pound sand.

The only problem possessed by al Zawahiri that i give a rat's ass about is that he is still breathing.

Hey, if you quit playing stupid, I'll lay off the intellectual hat.
Obviously this Giap is correct, since it was public opinion about the war that led to the American retreat. That is the truth, and if it hurts, I'm sorry.

Al Zawahri is a narcistic extreme right wing Muslim.
What that has to do with the American right? About just as much as the antiwar protesters have to do with Al Zawahri, i.e. nothing

I've quoted you GunnyL and CSM because you were agreeing on the fact that "lefties" are, "a live, snivelling coward with no honour" aka honourless pieces of shit. Some heartwarming support of your fellow countrymen.

No wonder this Al Zawahri pours some more oil on the flames of dissent.
You've just handed him the petrol.

Originally posted by Kathianne:
Good call Gunney. Playing at intellectual is all he'll ever be able to do. He's way too closed minded to be any such. He will make a hell of MSM journalist, until the owners decide to get serious though.

The pat on the back of the provider.
You are hereby complicit in handing the petrol to Al Zawahri. Are you proud?