stv, Qd s C cnstrct; t s NT grp. Qd s smply trdtnl slmc pprch tht dns ll Wstrn scl nrds.
sng th bv, w s tht nrly ll slmc fctns hv Qd dlgs, prhps th Shs lss s w nt thy qckly mbrcd th S ccprs nd qckly fll n ln wth Vchy rq gvrnmnt, bth lglly nd lrnng th dth sqd tctcs frm thr mrcn vrlrds. Yt, th Shs ls dntfy wth Sh rn, thmslvs swrn nms f Wstrn dprvts.
r th rq Shs cnfsd? Ys thy r, nd ntntnlly s bcs w WNT thm cnfsd, pst, pr, mpvrshd, lvng n cncntrtn cmp, ntl rn flls.
Qd s mrly rwlln wrd ssctn wth 9/11. Whnvr r crp lrds, r thr frnt ln mn, mntn 'Qd,' wht ds th rhd thnk bt? Th 9/11 fctn. Ths s NT rckt scnc, bt smply psychlgcl crp.
Although I think the surge is almost certainly doomed to fail, I do think there are colorable answers to the questions you pose here.
We are not addressing Al Qaeda in Iraq because we have the manpower to address only a small piece of the problem. The piece Petraeus has chosen to address is: (1) to increase the security in Baghdad, especially of Shi'a in Baghdad, in order to (2) give Parliament breathing space in which to make the concessions toward the Sunni which will (3) drive the wedge between the Sunni insurgency and Al Qaeda further in, and (4) break the political logjam, so that multiple parties begin to see political engagement as more rational than military engagement.
There is no reason to be optimistic about any stage of this plan, other than perhaps (3). But it is a coherent plan, and perhaps the only one which has some slim chance of averting an even uglier stage of the civil war.
The likely failure of this plan, of course, brings its own costs with it. But misguided as the attempt may be, it is not flat out irrational.
Posted by nicgteis at April 14, 2007 03:05 PMscout - agree that al Qaeda is a construct but OBL's and not the CIA. Either way, not sure how the US military is supposed to focus on a construct. We here in the west could be two or more years behind in our understanding of the divisions and alliances in Iraq that are shifting with the sands.
Posted by Marie at April 14, 2007 03:15 PMmr, pls dfn 'bl.' cn't rcll cmng crss ths trm.
[Editor: ignore=off]It is highly unlikely that the "surge" was EVER aimed at Al Qaeda. It was intended to give Bush a 'victory' that he could point to in justifying his invasion. Naturally, he botched it.
Posted by jwrjr at April 14, 2007 03:32 PMThe Bush secret plan to get Al Qaeda is to let them topple Musharraf and set up a fundie government.
Then with the supreme coalition of the willing, (India) he will "nucularize" them to hell once and for all.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 14, 2007 04:03 PMI'm sorry, but someone who claims to know so much about Al Qaeda, yet does not know that OBL is Osama bin Laden doesn't give me much confidence in their analysis. I can understand not knowing who KSM is, but OBL?
Marie, I sort of agree that AQ is a construct. From what I understand, any terrorist group can claim they're AQ, and they do, hoping to get more attention for their actions than a bombing by, say, The Judean People's Front, or other obscure sect might get in the media. My impression is that bin Laden laid out the idea of The Base, and anyone can join, but it's not a centralized heirarchy aside from OBL and a few close insiders. The cells are independent and mobile. That's why they're so hard to track, and arrest. This admin finds it useful to pretend AQ is a defined group with a finite set of members, so they can have an enemy to hold up and revile. This is why a military campaign like the surge and even what we're doing in Afghanistan is useless for this kind of enemy. I agree with driving a wedge between the Sunni in Iraq, and AQ would be a boon, but IMO it's more like hoping the Sunni in Iraq won't identify with AQ. Let's hope it can be done.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 14, 2007 04:18 PMthnks cyt; mr, sm ws bsclly n mply f th C, fndd nd tght by th C t fght th Svts, s n f thr prxy rms. Th C crtd Qd nd sm.
Th trm, cnstrct, s qt smpl nd sd by ll, slly fr dcptn. Fr nstnc, th thght/cnstrct f sm ws dfnd by 9/11. Whn 9/11 wnt dwn th crp bys mntnd sm nd tht th twrs wnt dwn by pln fl svrl tms drng th pnt f prcptnl cnfsn, th mst vlnrbl pnt n tm fr hmn cndtnng. vr snc thn, wll, prcptn hs bn prtty mch tht th ffcl xplntn ws th trth, whl th trth ws cmpltly cvrd.
Th mltry smply sd ths sm thght/cnstrct frmtn. Ths s qt smpl fr thm s thy smply hrvst vlbl cltrl cndtnng tht prps thr bckt f dcptn. Crp, vn kd wth mlt mlln dllr ftbll cntrct ws dpd nt jnng th mltry.
vry sngl cnscs nd ncnscs prcss f hmn bhvr s cncptlzd, slly wrngflly, wth sm thght pctr f scl cnstrctn. Ths s mprtnt t ndrstnd s th crp lrds FLLY ndrstnd ths tchnq, s t s th tchnq f shpng mss prcptn.
vryn hs thght/cnstrct f wht hppnss my b. Fr sm, t my b scrty, pltcl frdm nd physcl hlth. ch f th bv thr trms thmslvs r bstrctns, r cntrcts, fr ch ndvdl. Fr th tr Chrstn, ths trms r mnnglss, s th nly trth rsds tsd f cltrl xprnc.
[Editor: ignore=off]al fresco is a fiction. invented by the usg to stampede the american public to believing in some great, omnipotent, global enemy - so as to persuade the american public to clamor for the renewal of serfdom, indentured servitude.
the critical issues remain, what are the missions of the mercs? who directs their activities? where do they fit into the order of battle? what garb do they wear?
try to wrap your brain around blackwater, aegis, dyncorp, et alia taking no orders from conventional amerikan military, operating as a third/fourth/fifth force under the protection of the potus/vpotus. placing and detonating ieds. committing acts of assassination of sunnis and shias. and even of amerikan troops.
the mercenary story is the important story. and hearings into that story is being stonewalled, stymied by the democraps. and jack murtha is one of the major stymiers. just go to cspan and find his shut-down of marcy kaptur and her speech about tim spicer and the contract with the sandline successor org[aegis].
Posted by albertchampion at April 14, 2007 04:57 PMJeez, I'm paranoid to a point, but golly Scout, you have everyone in on some plot.
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 05:03 PMJdth, t's rlly nt vry cmplctd, nd th trth s fr mr sbtl tht prn. Y knw hw whn y g drvng t nw plc fr th frst tm? Whn y r nt qt sr bt th dstnc? t tks lng tm, rght? Lk y'r nvr gng t gt thr? Th sm s tr fr clr thnkng; nd th crp bys knw tht th vrg s nt nly vry, vry lzy, bt ntllctlly slw, wk, nd mst mprtntly, ld stry n 137 dcptns, ddng t th wrk ld f srtng th trth. Ths s why th pwr lt wn vry tm whn t cms t mss dcptn.
lbrt, lng tm n s. knw tht sm f th D's httng th Shs nd Snns wr Prvt Crp dcptns, bt hw sr r y tht thy r httng th S mltry?
[Editor: ignore=off]Seeing the picture at the beginning of Steve's post made me realize how void this Country is of actual photos of death and destruction in Iraq. We never see the reality of what we are doing in Iraq, and of course, it is meant to be that way. From the very beginning pictures of the dead in coffins were forbidden, which would certainly bring it a little closer to home. I guess they actually did learn something from VietNam.
I had to attend an Amy Goodman speech to see the photos of children injured because they were caught in the cross-fire. Damn it! We need to see these pictures.
Be sure to watch HBO's Bagdad ER, which is up for a Peabody Award next month. This film should wake up a few million Americans to the horror of war. I don't know when it is being shown because I don't have cable. Sorry.
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 05:36 PMIt's not a surge; it's a splurge, as in a spending splurge of our tax dollars to fatten the pockets of the industrial military complex.
Posted by ann at April 14, 2007 05:47 PMJdth, f y wld, pls r-rd Brv Nw Wrld nd 1984, Hxly nd rwll. Hxly's s n sy rd nd vry cls t trgt spclly cncrnng sxl prmscty/pltcl cntrl cnnctn. rwll's wrk s vry gd spclly cncrnng stt spnsrd trtr nd mss prcptn.
Th bv wrks tnd t lnd bt f ndrstndng n lght f yr prn cmmnt. (ck yr lbrry)
[Editor: ignore=off]Steve, your suggestion that we should have been going after al-Qaeda all along is very interesting. Maybe you can explain at what point in the past four years al-Qaeda stopped being an imaginary threat in the Iraqi theater of this war and became a legitimate target for the exercise of our might and a reason for our military's sacrifices.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 14, 2007 06:00 PMI guess they actually did learn something from VietNam.
Yeah, Cheney and Rummy learned how to avoid involving public opinion in their wars of choice. But even so, people eventually catch on and the criminals have to change their strategy. At this point, I'd advise: take the money and run.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 14, 2007 06:05 PMMaybe you can explain
Well, any one of us could, Toby, but we've learned that you don't listen, so why bother, eh? We've got better things to do with our time, is all.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 14, 2007 06:07 PM...Osama was basically an employee of the CIA, funded and taught by the CIA to fight the Soviets, as one of their proxy armies...
"Al Qaeda" would not exist without America.
al fresco is a fiction.
Exactly. Osama was casting about in Taliban training camps with a few dozen followers pre-911. He bought and paid for the operation. The entire command and control structure thought to exist with Al Qaeda is a fiction...or at least it was before Iraq. The Mad King, idiot son of George, took care of that.
Maybe you can explain at what point in the past four years al-Qaeda stopped being an imaginary threat in the Iraqi theater of this war and became a legitimate target for the exercise of our might and a reason for our military's sacrifices.
Well, after the war in Eye-raq first started over WMDs, any attack against us in Eye-raq was thought to be by Al Qaeda...that is...after you maroons couldn't find WMDs. Remember, that's when the douche bag you voted for started to trumpet that we "really" went to Eye-rag to get Old-Sammy Bin Ladels...and he was cereal!!! He meant it! He was cereal about Old-Sammy...that is, until he really meant what he said about Saddam was a bad guy...after you morons couldn't get Old-Sammy. Then after that it was about bring them Democra... or something like that. It's like trying to remember all the funny jokes you hear in a bar while you're drunk, although jokes in a bar don't normally kill 3250 American soldiers. Drunks in the White House seem to, for some reason.
Anyway, then -early in the Iraq war...sometime after Mission Accomplished and before "Heck of a job, Brownie!"- someone noticed that the people they thought were Al Qaeda in the Iraq war were really Iraqis. Then we called them insturgeons. What fish have to do with it, I don't know. Then, of all things, someone noticed that after we shit-canned the Iraqi army, some Al Qaeda types actually started coming into Iraq. Viola! Old-Sammy could offer impoverished militant Middle Easterners money to fight against the Zionist Americans, and folks would take him up on it! I'm cereal! Amazing, huh? You fucktards created the problems you are so fearful of...and have no clue how to handle!
Posted by phidipides at April 14, 2007 07:46 PMThanks, p-dip. You know, I might try the veal.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 14, 2007 07:59 PMAnn- "splurge" it is -- except it's measured in blood and US taxpayer funds instead of merely a luxurious indulgence.
Everybody -- read Fisk's "The Great War for Civilization" -- all 1,000+ pages. scout, the CIA - OBL connection isn't as strong as it superficially appears. I fully accept that the official 9/11 story is, at a minimum, grossly incomplete. Unfortunately, try as I have, I can't connect the available "dots" into a coherent alternative hypothesis. However, I took it far enough to become personally convinced that this one wasn't a CIA operation -- unlike many of the nefarious post WWII US foreign ops "dirty tricks." It was much easier to "read" Nixon-Kissinger than it is to read this latest gang. Might be the difference between total incompetence and delusional versus semi-competence and delusional.
Q: with all of the troops we are pouring into Baghdad to round up and pressure the Shiite Al-Sadr Mahdi Army, why are we not doing a damn thing to stop Al Qaeda...
A: 'cause The Decider doesn't really think about Al Qaeda that much.
Posted by The Ghost of Joey Ramone at April 14, 2007 08:23 PMEverybody -- read Fisk's "The Great War for Civilization" -- all 1,000+ pages.
I'm about 120 pages in right now.
The response by scout should be interesting Marie.
I agree re OBL (that's Osama bin Laden to you scout)and the CIA. Doesn't seem to be much evidence that he and his people benefited directly from the CIA money funneled into Afghanistan via the Pakistani ISI. Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars also deals with this.
I fully accept that the official 9/11 story is, at a minimum, grossly incomplete. Unfortunately, try as I have, I can't connect the available "dots" into a coherent alternative hypothesis.
Perhaps Albert Champion will regale us all with his hypothesis that no plane hit the Pentagon or Shanksville PA and that all the plane parts found at these sites were planted by parties unknown? Or how the WTC towers were mined with explosives and collapsed into their own footprints? He's got it all worked out you see.
Posted by snark at April 14, 2007 08:28 PMMr, xcllnt; gr tht y'r prbbly crrct bt th C/sm cnnctn bng wk, bt th gncy tht sd th 'sm' cnstrct dsn't nd mch f nythng, rlly, t gd pblc pnn, s phd pnts t. Wth r rhd pblc, thy cn nvnt s thy g.
wll chck th lbrry fr tht wrk.
phd, s lwys, dd s yr nsght, bt hv y bn sppng?:)
nn, ttlly gr.
[Editor: ignore=off]snark - stick with it, it's unrelenting blood and destruction. In all honesty, I "know" less now than I did before reading it.
What I do accept is that planes crashed into the WTC, Pentagon and PA and that the WTC collapsed from the impact of the crashes and resulting fires. But ...
Posted by Marie at April 14, 2007 08:43 PM"A: 'cause The Decider doesn't really think about Al Qaeda that much."
Ghost, OBL isn't even on Bush's radar screen these days. Of course, you have people like Steve (no not that Steve) from another post that tell us how much Bush loves America. Well, tell me Steve, how much does your Decider love America when OBL isn't important to him?
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 08:45 PMthnks, snrky, gt bl, nw. btw, f lbrt sd tht, h s crrct, ht t brst yr bbbl. Ddn't y vr g t brsschckTV.cm, nd d th 9/11 101 nvstgtn, gglng vrythng y dn't ndrstnd? t lst brsschckTV.cm s strtng pnt, nlss y'r frghtnd f lrnng smthng tht cnflcts wth yr cndtnd mnd-st, crtsy f r crp lrds:)
[Editor: ignore=off]scout,
Do you just have that same old boilerplate crap that you post saved somewhere so you can copy clip it into comment threads? If not you should. It would save you some typing work.
I'm preconditioned? You're a slave to a book written thousands of years ago. But I'm the preconditioned one? LOL!
Posted by snark at April 14, 2007 08:57 PMFirst, I'll take a stab at answering Steve Soto's question. I think some boots on the ground may be readying defenses in case Dubya attacks Iran, thus being slightly too busy to concentrate on protecting the Iraqi Shi'ite populace. But I don't think that's the real problem in stopping the suicide bombings. After all, any defenses being constructed would help a little against some of the bombing attacks against the Shi'ites as well as protecting against a possible Iranian backlash to a possible American bombing of Iran.
No, I think the truth in Iraq is a far worse one. What we're witnessing is not a traditional civil war, not even one as multi-faceted and disorganized and terrible as the one that ended in Lebanon a few years back. No, I think the truth in Iraq is that NO ONE is in control. It is Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome in Iraq. Complete anarchy. Murder in the streets. Personal and political vendettas are being played out ad infinitum, and the U.S. goals in Iraq make no sense from a strategic or tactical perspective. It's just window dressing to protect the fragile American psyche from realizing we are truly up the creek without a paddle. Sunni against Shi'ite. Both against America, to some extent. Some Sunnis against other Sunnis. Some Shi'ite against other Shi'ite. And sometimes they even rely on the U.S. for force. The reason the U.S. can't protect the Shi'ites from "Al Qaeda in Iraq" -- I'm sure they are there to a goodly extent, but no way are they the sole bombers of Shi'ites -- is because no one knows who is doing what in Iraq, because no one is in charge. It's just complete chaos.
As for the 9/11 and Al Qaeda stuff, I think connections between Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are being hidden, serious connections with chains of command and funding by the U.S. That's what I believe. Maybe our government even completely ignored threats made by "subordinates" in the form of Osama bin Laden and his proper Al Qaeda organization. That's what I think is causing the weird gaps between the official version and the numerous questions. I do believe planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon, although I think there may have been more going on to bring the Towers down, but those things weren't necessarily caused by any elements, including Bush and Cheney, of our government, but by elements of OBL's organization. It's even possible elements of Al Qaeada were actually in or government and helped 9/11 happen. But I don't believe the craziest theories, like the Towers being brought down was some Masonic-like American conspiracy or that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle. But I think it's obvious the whole truth has not been told.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 14, 2007 08:58 PMscout -- any and every unique event that is subjected to a high degree of scrutiny will be filled with anomolies and difficult to explain elements. It's not like we're going to rebuild the WTC just as it was and slam a couple of planes into it to see if it would collapse in the same way -- which I suspect it would. Let's be real - the neo-cons aren't competent enough to have pulled off the type of conspiracy postulated by brasscheck et. al. KISS -- if the Bush gang was involved, the whole this was much simpler than the conspiracy hypotheses that people are offering.
Posted by Marie at April 14, 2007 09:02 PMBrian Bell - Ya got it about right. No One and too many cooks in the kitchen are about the same thing.
My "gut" or "nose" keeps telling me that there is a BushCo-Saudi-OBL link link that we don't know about. Of course to get even that far, one has to believe that the US could have nabbed OBL if we'd wanted to.
Posted by Marie at April 14, 2007 09:11 PM...with all of the troops we are pouring into Baghdad to round up and pressure the Shiite Al-Sadr Mahdi Army, why are we not doing a damn thing to stop Al Qaeda from slaughtering Shiites at their holy places outside of town?
It's not about Al Qaeda, that's why. It's not about Sunni, Shia, Kurds, WMDs...none of that stuff. It's about oil.
The Iraqi parliament is under orders to get the oil laws passed by June. If they don't, we will replace them with a "freindly" government (Hey! Wolfowitz will be available) to cram an oil law down the throats of the Iraqis. We MUST have that law. That will make legal the death and destruction that it requires to get and keep the oil. That's what it's about. That's all it's about. It's only so we can say in the future that "F-22 Raptors struck from Saudi Arabi today, in support of Iraqi oil laws." That's all.
Maybe you can explain
iamcoyote:
Well, any one of us could, Toby, but we've learned that you don't listen, so why bother, eh? We've got better things to do with our time, is all.
Trust me: you don't have anything better to do. The truth is that you can't answer because it would reveal you as a thoughtless moron.
We weren't supposed to go into Iraq because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And because al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. But somebody forgot to tell al-Qaeda because its leadership and its followers obviously do believe Iraq has something to do with fighting us. So let them come and fight us there. Our fighting men and women will continue to exterminate them ---and rebuild Iraq in a new image of Arab self-government while we do.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 14, 2007 09:48 PMPhidipides, your reply to my question was embarrassing. When adults write like babies talk, as you have here, it is a burden to read.
What are you trying to say, anyway? That you suck? Yes. Then I do agree.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 14, 2007 09:56 PMit continues to fascinate me...how it is that jokers such as snark work so diligently to put words in my mouth.
why would any asshole care to do that?
i have never disputed aircraft colliding with terrain. my proposition has always been, what aircraft?
so much conjecture could have been eliminated had it not been for the orders of the potus. who ordered that all the evidence, all the debris, be carted off, disposed of, before any investigation could be conducted.
i shall say it again, as a metallurgist, much could have been learned had the structural steel of the towers not been shipped off to china, to india for reprocessing. let us not forget this, in the history of aviation accidents,never has the evidence been destroyed.
and it was not just the structural steel from the towers, it was the aircraft debris. engines. landing gear components. as i have tried to tell you many times, these critical components are serialized...linking them to tail numbers. but in these accidents, these critical components were collected, then disposed of[in fresh kills landfill, i think].
in the history of post WW2 aviation, i know of no aviation accident[s] that went as uninvestigated as those collisions with terrain on 11/09/01.
for snark, and others who must be bushits also, this failure to investigate is quite all right.
not for me.
as i have said on many occasions, the failure to conduct a real investigation into what happened that day, on the orders of the potus, is the clearest incident of a conspiracy to obstruct justice that you will ever encounter.
Posted by albertchampion at April 14, 2007 10:17 PMToby said:
We weren't supposed to go into Iraq because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And because al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. But somebody forgot to tell al-Qaeda because its leadership and its followers obviously do believe Iraq has something to do with fighting us. So let them come and fight us there. Our fighting men and women will continue to exterminate them ---and rebuild Iraq in a new image of Arab self-government while we do.
Jesus Toby, before you call someone else out for being embarrassing, look in the mirror at what you wrote there. Why Toby is Al Qaeda in Iraq now? Please don’t tell me it’s because they were already there, because only a right-wing Stepford Kool-Aid drinking ostrich would still believe that. Of course Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and thinks Iraq is a great opportunity: Bush gave them that opportunity. He created a failed state that has become a second base for Al Qaeda when it wasn’t before. And yet he refuses to dedicate enough resources to exterminate them, and instead goes after Shiite and Sunni insurgents who will never follow us here. There is nothing Bush is doing in Iraq now that would prevent Al Qaeda from coming over here, because he isn’t going after them enough in either Afghanistan or Iraq to impede them doing so. And given the history of the Arab and Islamic world and how much we are despised in that world since 2003, are you really still under the illusion that American military forces after Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, and the failed state we have bequeathed to Iraqis will be rebuilding “Iraq in a new image of Arab self-government?” Do you really believe that?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 14, 2007 10:21 PMThe dominant corporate economic concentrations adamantly resist regulatory demand restraint and routinely fabricate excess necessity for their products. Not to do so courts the most fearsome nemesis of our and the corporations economic lives: the liquidity crisis, also known as recession or depression, as in The Great Depression. The hardware of national security, or its appearance, are products, just like beer, dish detergent, electricity, happy motoring and insipid celebrities. They presently consume half the federal budget and, like a Ted Stevens bridge to nowhere, are jealously and fiercely protected by their benefactors and beneficiaries and are about as useful.
Were a divisive, inflamatory and reactionary interloping force like al Qaeda not operative in Iraq, as was the case prior to our deceitful invasion and criminal occupation, wouldn't the indigenous patriotic secular and sectarian national resistance movements have achieved, to the greater consternation of the colonial invader, more cooperative and unified action? It seems reasonable that corporations profiting from Iraq's carnage and wreckage and the appearance of America's national security, if not al Qaeda's creators and sustainers, must consider it one of their sole indispensible allies.
Although it's clearly obvious our Mayberry Machiavellis are sorely outclassed and way over their heads in playing The Great Game, they have learned a few duplicitous techniques from our British and Israeli cousins. However, these only delay and magnify the sorry adverse consequences of, but thankfully do not prevent, the entire sordid colonial expedition's inevitable defeat. Something most of knew intuitively long before the intelligence had been fixed round the policy and the first illegitimate treadprint was impressed on the dust of Iraq.
i cannot help but wonder if bush's surge is to get as many forces into Iraq to be used later to launch an attack on Iran? But if that is the intention and is carried-out I suspect we will unnecessarily lose that many more US soldiers (and cause a whole host of horror to open up in the Middle East, but that is another subject for another time.) Iran will not sit by and do nothing.
I agree with the first poster: al "Qaeda is merely Orwellian word association with 9/11. Whenever our corp lords, or their front line men, mention 'Qaeda,' what does the airhead think about? The 9/11 fiction. This is NOT rocket science, but simply psychological crap."
As long as there is an "enemy" bush and cheney will exploit it to justify waging war.
Al-Qaeda is a broad term that encompasses anything they choose it to. Couched as al-qaeda leaves most Americans unaware the are actually resistance groups on the most part in Iraq. There were fewer than 5,000 - 10,000, but now it is debatable how many have moved into or out of Iraq.
Notwithstanding let's put this into context ... al qaeda are defined as "terrorists." By referring to anyone resisting the US occupation as either al qaeda or terrorists bush believes will muster and/or continue support for his dirty war/occupation. Meanwhile it also immobilizes enough of the public so that staying the course in Iraq is still supported. However the country is divided with trends showing the plurality no longer are willing to lend support for a failed occupation.
Terrorism is a means to an end, a tactic. Without a clear definition of who the terrorists are or what constitutes a terrorist act means that anyone can be accused and labeled as a terrorist for any reason basically. It is convenient and gives bush enough leeway to keep the American public in a wartime frame of mind.
But the public recognizes we are using violence against Iraqis to continue occupying their country.
Unfortunately it does not stop either bush or cheney from proclaiming we are at war in Iraq because it is the central front on terror? Next we will be told al qaeda moved into Iran. I can hear it now "We successfully chased al qaeda out of iraq, but they crossed over into iran" or some such BS.
it continues to fascinate me...how it is that jokers such as snark work so diligently to put words in my mouth.
why would any asshole care to do that?
i have never disputed aircraft colliding with terrain. my proposition has always been, what aircraft? -Albert Champion, April 14, 2007.
Never disputed collision with terrain?
Really?
neither did they have anything to do with the demolition of part of the pentagon[no airplane impacted it]. neither did they fly an airliner into the ground in shanksville, pa. -Albert Champion, February 28, 2007.
From the comment thread of the post Dodging An Inconvenient Story by Steve Soto on February 28th, 2007.
Now technically, he doesn't actually say that aircraft parts were planted. But since he says no plane impacted the Pentagon any airplane parts had to come from somewhere else. He also supports the theory that photos from the scene were doctored ( as laid out by scam artist and huckster Jack White whose work Albert has supported on his own site). So Albert, if no plane impacted the Pentagon where did the aircraft parts found at the scene come from?
Posted by snark at April 15, 2007 05:36 AMSo let them come and fight us there.
So, Afghanistan wasn't on any of AQ's maps? Poor roads? No Howard Johnson's? I do agree, you people are so clueless that you would start another war to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq because fighting them in Afghanistan...where they were...just wasn't fun enough.
And why do you have your tit in a wringer over AQ? Even your Idiot King isn't worried about it.
G.W. Bush, 3/13/02: I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
What are you trying to say, anyway? That you suck? Yes. Then I do agree.
In general, when I speak to cretins I change the tone so as not to offend or confuse them. Your original question was so childish and showed such great ignorance of any of the facts a normal adult would have gained from any form of inquiry that required more than spouting the offical republi-con idiot's partyline as offered by Fox News, I thought I would dumb it down a bit so that you might comprehend the message. I now understand that your stupidity is so great that this did not happen.
Your original question included the moronic portion, "Maybe you can explain at what point in the past four years al-Qaeda stopped being an imaginary threat in the Iraqi theater...". I'll make the answer concise. That point came when YOU knuckle-dragging mouthbreathers ignored Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to go after the oil in Iraq.
You place some great moral equivalency test to the idea that you went to Iraq for WMDS, not AQ. You then went to Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy, not AQ. You went to Iraq to bring the brown people democracy, not AQ. Your vice president tried to make the connection between Saddam and AQ, a point even the Pentagon says is untrue. Now AQ is a great problem to you. A problem of your own creation in Iraq.
So your question that demonstrates such true lack of thought and rationality, "Maybe you can explain at what point in the past four years al-Qaeda stopped being an imaginary threat in the Iraqi theater..." is best answered by the mirror. That point occurred because of you and the incompetents you support. The point at which it happened was the day you went after WMDs...Saddam...or brought them Democracy in Iraq. The point where Al Qaeda became a problem occurred at the point people like you were put in charge of things there.
But lets face it. It's like trying to remember all the funny jokes you hear in a bar while you're drunk, although jokes in a bar don't normally kill 3250 American soldiers. Drunks in the White House seem to, for some reason... is freaking brilliant.
The causes of wars are always multiple. You are an ignorant person, Phidipides, to mistake any one of those reasons for the entirety of the rationale. The wars our country has fought have never been executed with tactical perfection, but the reasons for which they have been prosecuted are always sound. Even if you think this War for Iraq is only about oil, that's still saying a lot. You're still talking about the prosperity of our economy. Are you going to dismiss that, too?
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 15, 2007 11:07 AMSoto:
Of course Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and thinks Iraq is a great opportunity: Bush gave them that opportunity. He created a failed state that has become a second base for Al Qaeda when it wasn’t before. And yet he refuses to dedicate enough resources to exterminate them, and instead goes after Shiite and Sunni insurgents who will never follow us here. There is nothing Bush is doing in Iraq now that would prevent Al Qaeda from coming over here, because he isn’t going after them enough in either Afghanistan or Iraq to impede them doing so.
Ha! Listen to all of this generalship!
Could it be that the notion that Iraq is a sacrifical anode in the Middle East has been proven true? We've killed more birds with that stone than you know. Our men and women in uniform have taken down a dictatorship that ignored international law and posed a constant threat to its neighbors and replaced it with the elementary building blocks of a new and democratic Iraq. And now we are in a place from which other threats and opportunities can be addressed as well.
Mere contrarianism becomes reflexive and unthinking. In the context of national security and geopolitics, contrarianism becomes illogical and defeatist. That's what the Democrats are finding out right now. I hope they choke on it.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 15, 2007 11:21 AMlbrt, th bty f th 9/11 ffcl cnsprcy pckg s tht s shws th ncrdbl pwr th pwr lt hv vr prcptn. Thr r mllns f ppl tht RFS t s thr ys nd rs t thnk thrgh sm vry smpl lyrs f vdnc, sm f whch y s btflly pnt t.
s thr ny wndr hw th pwr lt mntns t's pwr vr th mnds f rhds? W'r tst, w r smpl ld dwn th rd f dcptn by mjrty tyrnny f th mst dsgstng bnch f TV fls 13k yrs f hstry hs vr, vr prdcd.
s 'v mntnd fw tms, snrk nd cyt nd thr r clst Blshvk/lttl Bsh clyts, rfsng t lrn thng s thy r n th Bsht pyrll.
[Editor: ignore=off]As I've mentioned a few times, snark and coyote and other are closet Bolshevik/little Bush acolytes, refusing to learn a thing as they are one the Bushit payroll.
"I never attack anyone personally." Really?
Posted by Judith at April 15, 2007 02:26 PM