Al Quida !

[Murffieus]

In the link below, Al Quida takes credit for killing 9 US Paratroopers. The Dems keep citing "sectarian violence" or "civil war" for the reason they want a timetable for withdrawal.

But isn't the cuprit really Al Quida and Al Quida linked groups who are inciting the violence between the crapes and Sunni's? I mean it was Al Quida who blewup the crape Mosque several year ago to start civil strife in Iraq -----to wear down American public opinion-----it's Al Quida who recruits the suicide bombers-----and isn't it Al Quida who bombed the World Trade Center killing over 3,000 people.

Apparently the Dems want to walk away and give Al Quida a victory so that they can swell their recruiting (everyone loves a winner) and bargain peace & stability in Iraq for oil money with the surviving government to finance their war on Christianity and jews----also bargain to set up training camps in Iraq to use as a platform for attacks on the USA.

One has to wonder whose side the Dems are really on----or are they simply naive?





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[SoCalwarrior]

I don't think even Chaney would blame Al Qaeda for the civil war between the Sunnis and crapes.   

And yeah, the Dems are on the side of the terrorists.   Great argument, Murf.

[Murffieus]

Calwarrior----I can see you don't follow things too closely in Iraq. It was Zarqawi then the head of Al Quida in Iraq who blew up that mosque in the holy city. This set the off crapes against the sunnis (Al Quida is a sunni organization)----it's been civil strife/sectarian violence ever since.

It's probably an undesirable/unintended consequense----but the Dems are unwiitingly on the side of Al Quida and giving them aid & comfort-----as both want the US to leave----but for different reasons. The Dems to satisfy domestic public opinion and therefore gain votes-----Al Quida wants us ought because with out the US there they will have a free zone to set up bases like they did in in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and train people to take the Jihad to us!

[nathanziarek]

What is Al Quida? I don't doubt you know your stuff, but the misspelling (at least according to every source I've seen) gets me every time I read it

Couldn't it be said that Al Qaeda actually wants us to stay as our presence increases the tension in the area? Once we leave, and the Iraqi police force is responsible for security, you might end up seeing a lot more ownership in the process and smaller likelihood of Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

I'm pretty sure you can take any action and twist to be shown "supporting the terrorists." That doesn't prove anything. No one wants the terrorists to win (except the terrorists). But reasonable people can debate the merits of different options without one side being "pro terrorist."

[77ncaachamps]

I hear Al Queda is in North Korea!

Let's INVADE!!!

All hail Bush!!!

[/end sarcasm]

 

[muarmy81]

What is Al Quida? I don't doubt you know your stuff, but the misspelling (at least according to every source I've seen) gets me every time I read it

Couldn't it be said that Al Qaeda actually wants us to stay as our presence increases the tension in the area? Once we leave, and the Iraqi police force is responsible for security, you might end up seeing a lot more ownership in the process and smaller likelihood of Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

I'm pretty sure you can take any action and twist to be shown "supporting the terrorists." That doesn't prove anything. No one wants the terrorists to win (except the terrorists). But reasonable people can debate the merits of different options without one side being "pro terrorist."

I fully agree with this but for a slightly different reason.  Right now with US forces in Iraq the IRaqis are trying to run their country the way they think we want them to run it.  When we leave they'll go back to running their country and, more importantly, their security forces with  a similar type of demeanour that was used when Saddam was in power.  I've worked with many Iraqis and talked about this issue and without going on forever this is what they've told me:
If somebody uses a car bomb or suicide bomb or IED the police would go to the neighborhood where it happened and kill everyone's livestock.  They'd tell the neighborhood "if this happens again we'll be back to kill all of your families" that usually ends the issue because 1. Its one thing to go to Allah for killing yourself but having your family killed isn't viewed as a "blessing" in the Muslim religion. 2.  Even if it wasn't anyone in the neighborhood you better believe that they will notify authorities of anyone suspicious operating on their street because (see 1.)
Right now if somebody is caught making bombs or coordinating attacks they get arrested and sit in jail for a few years (to Iraqis this is no big deal compared to how it used to be)  Once we leave and let them run with a stronger fist I believe violence will be curbed because how else do you expect a society to react to reason and discipline after living in fear for the past 20 some years under Saddam?  Besides that I thing Al-Quaeda wants us there because its an easily accessible battelfield for them to enter and fight the most hated people in their world...us.

[tower912]

Murf, once again, your early onset Alzheimers is on display.   Bin Laden wanted the US to occupy Afghanistan and the middle east in order to help him recruit and radicalize an army to do battle with the West.   We did our part, that is for sure.   If, instead of pulling all our resouces out of Afghanistan to prep for this illegal war in Iraq, the USA had finished the job and captured bin Laden, thereby showing the moderate muslims in the world what a chump he truly is, the world would be a much better place.    al Qaeda  should have been treated like the criminals they are and hunted down like criminals.   Now, like Colin Powell predicted, we have broken Iraq, and therefore we have bought it.    But I am sure that right after this surge is over, we will be greeted like liberators with flowers raining down from grateful Iraqis and then we will find those rascally WMD's that were the original reason for this fiasco somewhere north, west, east, and south of Baghdad, just like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (when he wasn't procuring favors for his girlfriend) said.   

[Murffieus]

Illegal War? 80% of the congress voted for it.

Saddam was shooting at our planes, was paying the families of Palestinian Suicde Bombers hefty stipends, was robbing the UN of billion (oil for food program) of which we are the major contributor, Saddam tried to assasinate a US President (GB sr,), he had invaded Kuwait in a grab for oil, and had used WMD and according to every intel source still had stockpiles of WMD

According to our post invasion arms inspector (Dulfer), Saddam retained the capability to start up WMD manufacture as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted.

Now granted mistakes have been made----but we've sucked Al Quida into battle in Iraq----and we have to win----there is no two ways about it----we have to win.

By taking the offense in the war on terror in Iraq & Afgahanistan-----we have removed their focus from attacking us here at home, meanwhile their leadership is in disarray in some incommunicado cave somewhere----the battleground is there not here----WANT PROOF: No attacks here on the homeland in almost 6 years! Due to the persistance of GWB & Chaney!

BTW----I've seen Al Quida spelled both ways!

[rocky_warrior]

the battleground is there not here----WANT PROOF: No attacks here on the homeland in almost 6 years! Due to the persistance of GWB & Chaney!

I know I should stay out of this but...

That's your proof?  C'mon.  Prior to Sept 11, 2001 hardly a second thought was given to a terrorist attack within the borders of the US.  Now we live with a seemingly constant "elevated" or "high" threat level.  Your trying to say that because we've "distracted" the terrorists in Iraq we're somehow safer here now?  Hardly, we've motivated them, and now have to watch our backs every step of the way.

Sure we've haven't had/have spoiled several attacks.  However, that was the case before 2001 too.  With prudence, we may have spoiled that attack.

I don't buy it.  I could argue they've distracted us, not the other way around.

[tower912]

Congress was lied to, just like the American people.  I fault them for not digging deeper and reading the footnotes of the intelligence community's pre-war findings.   ANY pre-emptive war, based on non-truths, is by definition not a just war.  Weren't you listening to JP2?    Attacking a country that did not attack us first because of invented evidence can only go down in history as at best a terrible mistake, at worst a crime.   Read your history.   How does history treat large countries that make up reasons to invade smaller countries?    This will be judged no differently.

[Murffieus]

Rocky-----GWB cut the heads off of Al Quida by isolating Bin Laden & Zwahari----almost completely cut off their international communications. So the next best thing----focus on pushing the US out of Iran & afghanistan-----recruitman then soars, training camps are resurected, and plans are made again to take the battle to the USA!

Under the present circumstances (communications cut off, Al Quida bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan) it is almost impossible for them to organize an attack here-----the stock market is telling you that-----no way would the market be registering all time highs day after day if we had the threat of a dirty bomb, WMD, or whatever overhanging!

I read history----and GWB is having the same problem rallying support on the war on terror that Churchill did attempting to rally support against Hitler in Britain in mid 1930s------Churchill was even more unpopular then in Britain than GWB is here today!

Tower----Congress saw the exact same intelligence as GWB saw----the EXACT SAME THING! You're ignoring the other reasons I lay out for you which justified an attack-----plus you use "hindsight" to label the intel on WMD as an "untruth"----looked very true at the time or 80% of the Congress wouldn't have voted for the war-----when's the last time Congress has voted 80-20 on a very important issue----I ask you WHEN?

History can't be a guide here ------9/11 has changed the ball game. With Nuke's & WMD in play-----if you don't fight a pre-emtive war you run the risk of a Pearl Harbor or another 9/11----only with much more far reaching consequences.

[tower912]

Murf, I was not using hindsight at the time.   There was abundant leakage out of Foggy Bottom in the fall of 02 that the reasons being give for the war were wrong.   ONE GUY, thought those tubes were for a centrifuge.   The IAEA, as well as our own Dept of Energy knew they were imcompatible for nuclear weapons.   It was known in the fall of 02 that the documents that purported to show that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake were forgeries.   It was known by our intelligence community as well as the Europeans that there was no working relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam.   The mythical meeting in Prague was known by all objective observers to be just that, mythical.    The only true unkown was whether Saddam had WMD's.   His own son in law had defected in early 02 and told our CIA that Saddam had destroyed them right after Gulf War 1.   This is not revisionist history.    This was all stuff buried deep in my own local, very conservative newspaper.    The head of the CIA's european operation told his superiors in DC that "curveball", the only source for the mobile WMD lab story, was a known liar and they had no other corroboration.   He was told that GWB had already made up his mind to go to war.   
All of this was available in the mainstream media in the fall of 02 and early 03.     
When the UN inspectors found nothing,  Bush/Cheney spun the absence of WMD's as proof that Saddam was hiding them.
Lies, Murf.   All lies.
I am not in favor of an immediate withdrawal.   I actually hope this surge does exactly what they predict.     However, to continually do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome is one of the definitions of insanity.    Another is an obsession with the Wide Post. 

[nathanziarek]

Congress never voted for the "war" (and actually, calling it a war is misleading, as war needs to be declared by Congress ... and it wasn't) they voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force. Now, I understand that our current political climate doesn't allow for any shades of grey, but that vote was a far cry from saying "Please go to war!" The vote, as the President requested, was to be used as a threat of force. It was not, and never has been, a vote for war.

[augoman]

Tower, I hope history won't judge us too harshly; especially after Teddy (the roughrider) ordered "take no prisoners" when we invaded the Phillipines... a war of genocide.  We've come a long way since, but our humanitarianism is lost on radical Islam.

[Mayor McCheese]

It's fine... its not a war... as some Republicans call it we are just "policing" Iraq right now...

Running for the 2000 election George W Bush declared he won't be a nation-builder during his presidency
In 2004, Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"


Al Qaeda is one thing, however this war has gotten out of control.. there is no direction in this fight, and there is no end in sight


Anyone is Better in '08

1/20/09..... that date couldn't come any sooner

[Murffieus]

McCheese-----so we wave the White Flag of surrender and go back to our pre 9/11 defensive mentality -----all that does is invite another 9/11 type attack as the Jihadists are allowed to regroup, but with possibly disasterous consequences .

Tower----- so what you are saying that there was a "minority" view in the CIA that Saddam had no WMD-----but there is always a "minority" opinion to everything----however it's always the majority opinion that prevails because the preponderance of evidence is with the majority.

I repeat----the Dem leaders on Congress saw the exact same evidence that GWB & Cheney saw-----exact same thing-----so there were no "lies"----just faulty intel.

Saddam was a terrorist of the highest order----and no friend of the USA----put it together and he was a threat. IMO shooting at our planes, stealing billions of our money via the UN, attempting an assasination of an ex US president, paying the families of Palestinian suicde bombers hefty stipends to terrorize Isreal, and having the capability to produce WMD at a moments notice-----are sufficient grounds for taking him out!

If not----please tell me----where do you draw the line?????

[tower912]

Saddam was contained.   At least according to Colin Powell in February of 01 and Condi in July of 01.   According to them he was unable to project force even regionally.    And no, it was the majority view in the intelligence community.   That is why the OPS had to be created, so that Feith the neocon could stove pipe the minority nut job thinking of a few within the CIA and get it to the ears of the decision makers.   Or did you miss the part recently where the Pentagon actually singled him and his office out for giving bad intelligence.   The only "sources" we had actually telling us there were WMD's in Iraq were from the Chalabi group, another paragon of virtue.   
What will victory look like in Iraq, Murf?    Are you actually deluded enough to believe that we can still project some sort of Pax Americana by force in the middle east?    With who's army?    Or do you still think we have the numbers necessary to enforce this peace in an open-ended fashion?   I guess we could use our allies, if we still had any.   We could rally world opinion, oh, wait, we already have against us.    We could turn to our Saudi friends.   Oh, wait, they want us out.    And what happens if China says to us, get out of Iraq or we will quit buying your debt?    No, Murf, we should do what you say and continue on blindly doing the same failed thing.   Genius, man.

[Mayor McCheese]

McCheese-----so we wave the White Flag of surrender and go back to our pre 9/11 defensive mentality -----all that does is invite another 9/11 type attack as the Jihadists are allowed to regroup, but with possibly disasterous consequences .

Tower----- so what you are saying that there was a "minority" view in the CIA that Saddam had no WMD-----but there is always a "minority" opinion to everything----however it's always the majority opinion that prevails because the preponderance of evidence is with the majority.

I repeat----the Dem leaders on Congress saw the exact same evidence that GWB & Cheney saw-----exact same thing-----so there were no "lies"----just faulty intel.

Saddam was a terrorist of the highest order----and no friend of the USA----put it together and he was a threat. IMO shooting at our planes, stealing billions of our money via the UN, attempting an assasination of an ex US president, paying the families of Palestinian suicde bombers hefty stipends to terrorize Isreal, and having the capability to produce WMD at a moments notice-----are sufficient grounds for taking him out!

If not----please tell me----where do you draw the line?????

If Al Qaeda wanted to do another 9/11 attack, they could... trust me, the troops being in Iraq is NOT preventing that... in fact all it is doing is pissing off the world even more.  When there is no real plan in action, and no end in sight, but yet we have a stubborn incompetent president who is lost as to what to do.... fantastic, lets keep fighting with no plan....  while we are at it, why not just move in Iran and N Korea, that would be even better.  Like I said in a different post, 2006 elections obviously showed that the American people wanted change, and I couldn't agree more.

[Murffieus]

McCheese----you say "trust me" that the fact that we have Al Quida bogged down in  Irag (and afghanistan I might add) aren't preventing 9/11 type attacks.

Well let me ask you ---------what is preventing more 9/11 type attacks here?

What do you mean "no plan" in Iraq------there has been a change in plans (we also have a new Defense Secratary plus a new General)----the new plan is to clean out insurgents and HOLD the area-----as opposed to formerly clearing out insurgents and moving on to new areas to confront others---that's why more troops are being added!

I don't think you have thought out the negative repercussions from waving the white flag and surrendering to AlQuida in Iraq which is what pulling out is equivilant to!

[tower912]

So, do we hold the areas for a decade?   Again, I ask, with who's troops?   How can the president say one day that the dem's putting strings on the funding will lead to longer stays (when there is no issue until the end of June), and have his SecDef on the very next day announce an extension of all current tours to support the surge?  And you still think there is a plan for winning.   I only wish you were right.

[Mayor McCheese]

too bad we didn't do anything then...  the fact that we are just holding the area makes me wonder... for how long?  People could say during the Vietnam War we were just holding the area... it didn't work, this isn't working, who came up with the number of 20,000 more troops or whatever it was, are we sure its only that much more.... how would we know?  Maybe I would start believing our plan is working, and start supporting the war when our president and his friends that he calls a cabinet stop holding information from the American Public.  Bush's deceit, lies and obvious faults as president is the reason why after January 20, 2009, he will go down in history as one of the top 5 worst presidents in our history, if not the worst... and that is beating the likes of Buchanan and Hoover, which takes a lot.

[Murffieus]

Tower----no not "ten years"----there is going to have to be a political accomodation between the crapes & sunnis at some point----but there can't be a political solution until the tables are turned militarily.

McCheese----Harry Truman had a worse approval rating than GWB in the early 1950s during the Korean War-----and guess what----today's he's revered as one of our greatest presidents. Truman is like GWB-----he stood his ground----didn't bend with the political wind!

Wars aren't popular----but sometimes necessary----as the populace loses patience! This is a different type of war (no battle lines drawn)----our troops weren't trained for this nor were our officers & generals taught how to handle insurgency wars with suicide bombers & roadside bombs----but we had better learn as there will be a lot more of this in the coming years!

[tower912]

North Korea invading South Korea wasn't a lie.    When the Dems say we need benchmarks, they are cut and runners.   When SecDef Gates tells the Iraqis that our support is not open ended no one twitches.   What does 'victory' in Iraq look like?   A functioning western-style democracy?    Three distinct ethnic states with a weak central government divvying up the oil?   An end to ethic conflict?   No violence?   Being greeted as liberators and having the oil revenue pay for all of this?  Has anyone actually said what the administration's benchmark for victory is?   And if not, how will we know when we get there?

[Murffieus]

Victory in Iraq is not letting Al Quida win by inciting sectarian violence in Iraq. Al Quida and the Dems have the same objective-----force the USA out of Iraq!

If Al Quida wins----their ranks swell----they have an uninhibited habitat to train recruits ala Afghanistan prior to 9/11----make a deal with the Iraq governement to avoid violence in return for oil money to finance terrorism. We go back as a nation to the pre 9/11 mentality----meanwhile Al Quida plans and strikes with WMD or something just as lethal!-----while we're back on defense.

This country has the potential to prevent this-----but too much ambilivance and atrophy among the citizenry. People think too short term------the long term picture on the war on terror is what the focus should be on!

[tower912]

al Qaeda did not have a significant presence in Iraq before we invaded.   And if defeating al Qaeda is your true benchmark, why are you not as furious as I am that we did not keep all of the necessary assets in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden and all of his major lieutenants, instead of pulling our resources out to prepare for an unnecessary war against someone who hadn't actually attacked us?   GWB started pulling assets out of Afghanistan as early as March of 02.   He didn't finish the job against the leaders of al Qaeda.   Yet you celebrate his failures.   I will never understand that mindset.

[Murffieus]

Al Quida is just one part of "Radical Islam". Saddam was a huge terrorist as well and was no friend of the the USA----tried to kill Bush senior in Kuwaitt in 1993, was paying hefty stipends to Palestinian suicide bomber families in very public ceromonies----had used WMD on the Kurds----was harboring Answar al Islam a terrorist group in northern Iraq (who are still active in Iraq).

Let's face it----things weren't going to get better with Saddam!

GWB has decimated Al Quida-----has caught or killed most of the top leadership except for Bin Laden and Zwahari. Taking the offense in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Patriot Act----have kept us 100% free of Radial Islam terrorism domestically since 9/11.

BTW----Radical Islam did indeed attack us on 9/11------please don't deny that Saddam wasn't part of "radical islam jihadism"! One mistake here is that you are looking at this country by country with border separation------radical islam knows no borders------this is a different enemy!

[tower912]

Northern Iraq was under Kurd and UN control.   Saddam was a secular thug who had as much animosity and fear of al qaeda as we do.   bin Laden wanted Saddam gone almost as badly as GWB did.   The only two things they had in common was the region of the world they were born in and the USA as an enemy.    Just because Larry Flynt and Pat Robertson both defend the first amendment does not make them allies.   
We have been attacked before, we will be attacked again.  We have been attacked by radical Christians, government haters, loners with an axe to grind as well as muslim extremists.   We have survived all of them.   The only way to truly defeat America is to take away the freedoms and ideals that make America great. Radical Islam is an idea.   Defeating an idea with guns never works.   You defeat an idea by showing it for the folly it is and that you are not the devil it claims.   BTW, it looks like GWB is going to give the surge until fall to work and then look to cut and run himself.  Then what will you do, Murf?
al Qaeda, or a version of it, will always exist, just like the KKK, or organized crime.   Extremists of all religions have existed throughout existence.   Those who distort religion to promote violence and hatred have always and will always exist.    It is the dark side of the nature of human existence.

[Murffieus]

1)  "defeat an idea by showing what folly it really is" ?

That would be nice, but just how do you propose to go about doing that?

2) "GWB take until the fall to work"-----where do you see that? If that's the case why is he fighting the Dems on a troop withdrawal?

3) Don't you think that Al Quida and other forms of Radical Islam in the age of Nuke proliferation are much bigger threats to national security than the "KKK or organized crime"?????

[nathanziarek]

Gonna have to agree with Tower, here.

You can't fight an emotion (War on Terror) and you can't beat terrorism. A terrorist is one guy with a bomb strapped to his chest in the middle of the mall. No amount of preparedness or Homeland Security can prevent that.

You _may_ be able to take down individual groups, but we've been told since the beginning that the strength of Al-Qaeda lies in the complete lack of central authority and financing. Let's pretend that we kill the "top" 100 members of Al-Qaeda. Does that kill Al-Qaeda? Now let's say yes, it does kill the organization. Does it kill the hatred these radicals feel for western civilization? No. And if just one decides to wire up some C4 and go for a walk through some populated area, lives are lost.

For all your talk of this being a "different" kind of war, Murf, you are treating it like that same old thing. A typical war against a country (that did not harbor the terrorists this thread is titled after) is not going to win this battle. Destroying a few "key" people won't help much either.

The only that'll help is changing the minds of these people. Short of that, we need to sniff out each and every "plot" and stop it. Maybe we are occupying Al-Qaeda right now in Iraq. Remember the war has been to the tune of nearly 4,000 troops and who knows how many innocent Iraqis. I do not believe that this war has staved off another attack on US soil, but even if it has, look at the cost.

Stephen Colbert said it best, "This presidet is steady. He believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday...No matter what happened on Tuesday." I never liked this president, I won't lie. But it seems as if everyone that is for the war says "its different after 9/11 and this is a new type of war" while simultaneously praising the president for remaining vigilant in fighting the same old war.

I just don't get it...

[tower912]

GWB giving the surge until fall was on the front page of my local paper yesterday from an AP article.

[Murffieus]

Nathan----you say essentially the same thing as tower that an idea has to be fought with a better idea "to show the folly of their idea"--------as I say that sounds good, but as a practical better how is this executed-------I mean we're dealing with emotional nuts here that saw off peoples heads and give up their own lives in suicide bombings for "72 virgins"----meanwhile these religious emotional nuts are being programmed by the radical Shieks and Mullahs-----the moderate muslims are afraid to intervene less they get their heads chopped off-----so please tell me----how to you beat this with ideas????????

Tower chose not to answer that question----maybe you can!

[nathanziarek]

Sorry, Murf, I can't. I'm guesing Tower can't either.

What I know is that everyone is telling us that this not a typical war and not an ordinary enemy. And yet, some seem determined to defend the fighting of this war in a completely conventional manner.

I don't know how you win the actual war against radical Islam. But I can't imagine how anyone thinks you will make some one hate you less by beating on them. We need someone less blood thirsty in the office to try new options. Yeah, they might fail, but our current actions are nearly* guaranteed to.

_{* I suppose we could someone manage to kill anyone with a negative feeling about western civilization, and in that, this war might solve something.}

Nate

[Murffieus]

We tried a different option under the Clinton regieme-----and that option was strictly defensive while treating domestic terrorism strictly as a law enforcement problem (as opposed to a military problem). So what was the answer from Radical Islam-----nothing less than 9/11.

So now GWB throws out defense and takes the offensive----it's no longer considered to be a "law enforcement problem" but a "military" one. But now as the memories of 9/11 fade, many don't like that either and now want to go back to defense or at least a much less combative posture (pull out of Iraq where we are confronting Al Quida). After that, if thinks heat up in Afghanistan (which they are bound to)----there will be pressure to get out of there too.

IMO under a less combative posture Radical Islam (Al Quida included) will regroup and hit us harder than 9/11----they are bound and determined to do us in----it's a religious thing----they've told us the only thing that will save us is to convert to Islam-----I don't know about you----but I don't want any part of Islam-----and I think I'm in the vast majority on that!

[rocky_warrior]

We tried a different option under the Clinton regieme-----and that option was strictly defensive while treating domestic terrorism strictly as a law enforcement problem (as opposed to a military problem). So what was the answer from Radical Islam-----nothing less than 9/11.

Wow, I've heard lots of crazy conspiracy theories on 9/11, and seen lots of fingers pointed.  But now it's Clinton's fault we were attacked while GWB was in office?  Would you care to lay out the details of this theory of yours?  Perhaps make a movie, we'll call it "Murff's Pocket Change".

BTW, any religion believes that in order to be saved you need to convert.  Yup, that includes Christianity.  Islam is no different.  Much of this war has been focused against Muslims - it's easy to see why they want us out of the area, or even better, dead.   We've killed thousands upon thousands of Muslims in this war - If I were Muslim I'd be incited to.  And why did we kill them?  Because Saddam had WMDs, or could make WMDs?  No, he didn't, so now we're doing it to remove the Terrorists from Iraq.  Guess what?  We created the terrorists in Iraq, and the more we fight, the more we encounter.  Coincidence?  Not Likely.

Spreading your propaganda that exiting this war in Iraq will lead to more violence at home is rediculous.  Bring our boys home, protect *our* country, and put some of this war money into building businesses in the USA.

Oh and while we're at it, maybe we can find someone to finish the job and take out Bin Laden.

[augoman]

wow, Rocky, you mean that, had Clinton treated the first WTC attack with a normal reaction and gone after Bin Laden (or merely accepted his head when offerred), then the second WTC attack would still have occurred?

[nathanziarek]

It is possible, who knows? Al Qaeda isnt run by bin Laden. The cells work autonomously, which is why they are so hard to track down.

I've never once blamed W for the 9/11 attacks. I'm a pretty firm believer that it is easy to terrorize (even on such a grand scale). What I blame Bush for is his response to the attack, which was to attack a country that had NOTHING to do with the towers. There wasn't even an Iraqi hijacker.

In hindsight, the Clinton administration shouldn't have attempted to deal in back channels for someone who turned out to be such an important figure in this new war. They didn't have the luxury of knowing what we know now. Still, a bit naive to assume that simply capturing Bin Laden would have prevented all terrorism moving forward.

[Murffieus]

Nathan----at the time of 9/11 Al Quida was an autonomous group with Bin Laden pulling the strings----post 9/11 a different story as GWB decimated it's leadership right under Bin Laden and at the same time isolated Bin Laden so he couldn't communicate with the cells as he did pre 9/11.

Now cells are calling their own shots pretty much (e.g. Al Quida in Iraq).

However with the first twin tower attack, the attack on the USS Cole and our embassies in Africa it should have been a signal to the Clinton Administration that we have a military problem and not a domestic law enforcement problem----Clinton did attackan Al Quida camp in Afghanistan and a supposed Al Quida Chemical plant in the Sudan-----but whether or not this was done more to diffuse attention off the Monica Lewinski thing or actually taking decisive MILITARY action against Al Quida is still an unanswered question.

[Mayor McCheese]

Nathan----at the time of 9/11 Al Quida was an autonomous group with Bin Laden pulling the strings----post 9/11 a different story as GWB decimated it's leadership right under Bin Laden and at the same time isolated Bin Laden so he couldn't communicate with the cells as he did pre 9/11.

Now cells are calling their own shots pretty much (e.g. Al Quida in Iraq).

However with the first twin tower attack, the attack on the USS Cole and our embassies in Africa it should have been a signal to the Clinton Administration that we have a military problem and not a domestic law enforcement problem----Clinton did attackan Al Quida camp in Afghanistan and a supposed Al Quida Chemical plant in the Sudan-----but whether or not this was done more to diffuse attention off the Monica Lewinski thing or actually taking decisive MILITARY action against Al Quida is still an unanswered question.

ever hear of the Spanish-American War, where we started a war overa battleship being blown up, the USS Maine... thinking it was Spain, but in fact was just the ship blowing up internally... I dont remember if the Cole was terrorist or not(probably was)... but a small terrorist group is no reason to attack an entire nation... sorry, radical islam and Al Quida is only a small fraction of the population, that is like attacking America over the radical Baptist Churches in the South... or attacking Ireland due to the terrorist groups attacking Britain for years... why don't you ever talk about them, they are just as much of a problem as Al Quida, and have been doing it for longer, yet us as Americans look away... or how about the Genocides in Africa... if it doesn't hurt us getting oil these days, America seems to turn its head, thanks to the government and our presidents deep ties to oil

[rocky_warrior]

wow, Rocky, you mean that, had Clinton treated the first WTC attack with a normal reaction and gone after Bin Laden (or merely accepted his head when offerred), then the second WTC attack would still have occurred?

I'm a fair and reasonable person.  The attacks may still have occurred, they may not have - I don't know.  I do blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden while he was in office.  Similarly, I blame GWB for not getting him now. 

Maybe I'm more bitter at GWB because of the amount of money he's used to try to accomplish the task.  A trillion or two plus a few thousand lives versus a few Tomahawks at $500,000 each (yes, I know, that was after embassy bombings in 1998, not after the 93 WTC attack).

Anyhow, I'll sign off the political discussions for a while.  I really do find them to be a waste of time.  Very rarely does anyone spout anything new (myself included), and I've never been able to change someone's mind 

[nathanziarek]

I'm following you Rocky...my wife called me a bad, bad name for continuing this debate on MUScoop...and she's right.

But first,

but whether or not this was done more to diffuse attention off the Monica Lewinski thing or actually taking decisive MILITARY action against Al Quida is still an unanswered question

And whether or not Bush invading Iraq was more to diffuse attention from the PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to attack on American soil" or the weak economy or based on his neocon buddies simply wanting to attack Iraq for the last 10 years is still an unanswered question.

I think the facts prove that you are almost entirely wrong about Al Qaeda pre W's decimation of their leadership. But, who cares. Facts don't matter here.

I will readily admit that the Clinton Administration should have taken the opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody, but that is entirely in hindsight. In fact, when Bush took office, he was warned that Bin Laden was the largest threat facing the country. Even Clinton will admit that he should have pushed harder for Bin Laden. I don't know why, but it didn't happen (deals were there, but the underground negotiations never panned out).

Can you admit that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11? Can you admit that the administration knew that going in? Can you admit that we've spent -- in dollars and human life -- untold amounts because our president made a grave error in judgement and repeatedly refused to admit that mistake? "Stay the course!"

I generally disagree with the cut-and-run mentality because I feel like we broke it, we brought it. That said, there have been a ton of respected opinions stating that leaving Iraq now could actually make it stronger than with us there. In that case it isn't "cut-and-run", it is simply the right thing to do.

I'm out Murf! It's been frustrating but fun!

Nate

[Murffieus]

It shouldn't be called "cut & run"----it should be called what it is "surrender".

Al Quida is provoking sectarian violence by bombing mosques and attacking sectarian civilian groups mainly crapes who in turn retaliate against suuni civilians. We "cut & run" Al Quida wins----it's ranks swell, money pours in, and they have a new training ground from which to train and plan attacks on America as in afghanistan pre 9/11.

Then the next war in retaliation for those attacks costs even MORE lives!

Democrat Sen Lieberman is 100% correct-----draw a line in the sand right here in afghanistan and Iraq!

[nathanziarek]

dang it, you dragged me back.

ever think that this new training ground wouldn't exist hadn't we invaded and completely distroyed any sense of civility in the area?

hmm...

[Murffieus]

Well we're there now----so whether or not we should or should not have invaded is a moot point!

[tower912]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6606115,00.html

And this is why terrorism will always be with us, behind one mask or another.      Another attack here is inevitable.   That is the premise we work under when we do our annual multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency tabletop simulations, bomb scares, chemical spill or attack training.    Even my medium sized midwestern city expects it to happen here sometime.   Will it be al Qaeda, another McVeigh trying to start a race war, militia types, or a loner with anthrax or a gun?   Why should we be exempt from what the rest of the world experiences?

[Murffieus]

Would be nice to get BinLaden----but radical Islam is bigger than Bin Laden. Getting BinLaden will not end this war----in fact Bin Laden might then turn out to be a martyr and make our job tougher----right now he's incommunicado in some cave in Pakistan which at this time is off limits to us. We can't incite the Pakistan citizenry------this is a very pivotable situation as Pakistan has nukes----and if Musharrif gets overthrown by radicals and they get nukes-----the ante in this war acccelerates tremendously!