Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (104023)	7/28/2007 8:53:32 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"nor has the US been attacked elsewhere by AQ." You sure you want to say that???

To: Brumar89 who wrote (104023)	7/28/2007 9:40:51 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies. Bin Laden wanted Saddam out as much as we did. Saddam was a secular dictator, Bin Laden wants theocracy. If only Bush had listened a little bit before he invaded... To this for example: globalpolicy.org US Misreading of Bin Laden Tape May Win Iraqi War for Al Qaeda By William O. Beeman* Pacific News Service February 13, 2003 The Bush administration's assessment of al Qaeda's relationship with the government of Saddam Hussein remains seriously flawed. If it is not rethought, America may win the war in Iraq -- for Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration has pursued a dangerously inaccurate "fungal" theory of world terrorism. It assumes that, like a giant mycelium, all terrorist organizations are part of the same organism. They have a single purpose and are linked. Individual groups pop up here and there like fungi, in cells to attack the United States. In this neo-Cold War theory, Iraq constitutes one cell, and al Qaeda, another. Eliminating the Iraqi regime, it is thought, will damage terrorism everywhere. This theory is wrong. Saddam and al Qaeda are competing for the same political and cultural ecosystem. They are not only opposed to each other, they have utterly different philosophical views on how the Middle East should be governed. The latest manifestation of this flawed American theory occurred on Feb. 11, with the revelation of a new tape from Osama bin Laden, or someone masquerading as him. Whether it is actually bin Laden or not, the remarks are consistent with his previous rhetoric. It is the U.S. reading of the tape that is off base. In the words of Colin Powell's spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, the tape purportedly proves "that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein seem to find common ground." But the full tape, when properly read, shows that al Qaeda is opposed to Iraq, and that Washington's pursuit of war serves al Qaeda's interests more than those of Americans. First, the tape shows that bin Laden, far from supporting Saddam Hussein, is directly opposed to him. Saddam is ruthlessly secular. His Ba'ath party and his government is socialist in its origins and its practice. Bin Laden asserts that "socialists and communists are unbelievers," thereby labeling Saddam an apostate of Islam, an infidel. Second, bin Laden opposes all secular leaders in the Arab world. His opposition to the government of Saudi Arabia is well known, and his desire for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime is equally well established. To make the matter perfectly clear, the tape also called for the overthrow of a range of governments: "Among regions ready for liberation are Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, the country of the two shrines (Saudi Arabia), Yemen and Pakistan." Bin Laden's eventual ends are also made clear in the tape. He admonishes his followers, "You know that such a crusade war concerns the Muslim nation mainly, regardless of whether the socialist party and Saddam remain or go. So Muslims in general and Iraq in particular must pull up your pant legs for jihad against this unjust campaign." It is this last aim that should give the Bush administration serious pause. In eliminating Saddam, the United States is in effect fulfilling bin Laden's agenda. Saddam is not a partner for al Qaeda -- he is irrelevant. Far from opposing the war, bin Laden welcomes it as a chance to humiliate the United States on the battlefield, and as an opportunity to pave the way toward an Islamic regime in previously secular Iraq. The tape suggests that if the United States tries to eliminate Saddam, the process will not be quick and painless as administration officials have claimed. Killing the Iraqi regime will not deal a deathblow to a mushroom-like "terrorist organism." Bin Laden advises his Iraqi followers: "go and dig many trenches as it was mentioned before in the holy book, 'Take the earth as your shelter.' Such a way will deplete all your enemy's reserves in a few months." Now we know how the war may really proceed. A quick blow in Baghdad would not instantly liberate the Iraqi people and usher in democratic rule. In the hills and caves of the Zagros mountains on Iraq's eastern borders, al Qaeda guerilla forces will be waiting for Saddam's secular army to be eliminated by General Tommy Franks and his U.S. Central Command. Then they will descend to strike in the name of revolutionary Islam. SD

To: Brumar89 who wrote (104023)	7/28/2007 10:28:38 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

re:"AQ is now larger and stronger than it was before the war Doubtful. Since 2001, the US has been attacked by AQ only in Iraq, though most AQ attacks there are aimed at Iraqis." Since 2001? AQ didn't exist in Iraq in 2001 according to the Bushies and everyone else. Only attacked in Iraq....did you forget Afghanistan??? OBL is still loose and growing in Pakistan according to the Pentagon. "the US homeland has not been struck, nor has the US been attacked elsewhere by AQ. " Why do you continue to ignore Afghanistan? And according to you AQ is the primary enemy in Iraq. Aren't those attacks on the US? "the number of terrorists has increased, not decreased. We don't know that." By you own statements, you say AQ is in Iraq where they didn't exist before. According to Bush, AQ is the primary enemy in Iraq....there were more than 5500 attacks in Iraq last month. According to you and Bush most have been by AQ. How could that be possible without an increase in strength? And no one in the Pentagon will dispute that AQ has not increased in strength and regrouped in Afghanistan and have refuge in Pakistan. "What you don't remember is that Iraq was a cause celebre before the current war just as it is now." Nonsense, Iraq became a cause celebre because Bush and Cheney made it that. It was not a threat to us or anyone else.