Al-Qaeda 'spurred on' by Iraq war.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Al-Qaeda 'spurred on' by Iraq war.
56
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 10:11am

When/if the goals are met in Iraq this isn't going to reduce A-Qaeda's actions.


What strategy is there to fight the real war on terror? Is defence the only option?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm


Al-Qaeda remains a viable and effective "network of networks" and has been galvanised by the war in Iraq, according to the London-based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies.


It says that recent attacks in Spain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia show that the group has fully reconstituted itself after the loss of its base in Afghanistan.


Osama Bin Laden's network has set its sights firmly on the United States and its closest Western allies, the report says.

It would ideally like future operations to make use of weapons of mass destruction.

According to conservative intelligence estimates quoted by the IISS, the group is present in more than 60 countries and has "18,000 potential terrorists at large".

The IISS says the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers, while diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition.

US forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with what the report calls its most attractive "iconic" target outside the United States itself.

The report also addresses the broader issue of relations between Islam and the West, saying the Bush administration did not fully appreciate that the 11 September attacks were a "violent reaction to America's pre-eminence".

To win hearts and minds, the report says, the appearance of American unilateralism needs to be tempered.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 10:27am

US forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with what the report calls its most attractive "iconic" target outside the United States itself.



Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 10:42am
AS IF Al Qaeda is just an innocent bystander in all this! Why do liberals act as if Al Qaeda was just minding their own business prior to the war in Iraq? And why is it that liberals blame the victim instead of the aggressor? Have they already forgotten that the source of international terror are fanatics like Al Qaeda? Do they even care that innocent lives around the world have paid the price because of Islamist fundamentalists such as Al Qaeda? This gives a whole new meaning to *bleeding heart liberals*.
Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 10:48am
With sympathy coming from the liberal press such as the BBC, this only gives Al Qaeda the legitimacy it wants/needs in the continuation for their terrorist actions. To continue to offer excuses for that evil entity only emboldens them to further terrorize peaceful nations. Of course, liberals don't see that at all. They're too busy idolizing the likes of Al Qaeda and other Muslim fanatics. Thanks guys.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 11:02am

*bleeding heart liberals*


OT What's with this continuous "liberal" bashing?

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 11:17am
A good defense is a strong offense. Taking the fight to their backyard is appropriate and a very good tactic. Let them die on their own land than on foreign soil taking innocent victims.

To retreat because we are afraid of the enemy only emboldens them (Does Spain ring a bell?). I'm tired of reading Al Qaeda apologists (liberal media) and their continued handwringing about the latest act/s that will/might set off Al Qaeda. Will we ever read an editorial about ways to effectively remove Al Qaeda from the liberal press? Do pigs fly?

JMHO, so don't sweat it. :) You can always ignore my posts and commiserate with the other liberals who dominate this board. I'm just trying to bring some balance to this discussion. :D As for the term *liberal*...if the shoe fits...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 11:46am

My line of reasoning: Report from London, BBC British.


Dozens of links to the same story on.........

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 11:58am
ITA..I am so sick of the liberal media demonizing the US and giving Al Qaeda and other terrorists hope that they can demoralize us so we will back off and let them do as they please.

With or without this war in Iraq, the terrorists still want to kill us. I would rather kill an Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, than to watch him fly a plane into another building in right here in the USA.

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 12:11pm
<>

I wouldn't brag about it.

<>

<>

Lets apply some logic from the articles you quoted (I read them all and them some). They all use the same original source for the statistics cited in the article:

AQ began with 20,000 fighters. Presently they have 18,000 fighters.

Thus 20000-2000=18000

Just a quick look at the numbers illustrates that their ranks have DIMINISHED by 2000 fighters.

How many were recruited post-Iraq... and where were they trained? Not Afghanistan. Not Iraq. Using their math, ZERO new fighters have been trained since then.

Is this a new type of math liberals are touting? LOL. Liberals must believe American peopla are dumb to believe 20000-2000 leaves a net GAIN. Only in liberalotopia does one equate the loss of fighters to a net gain. LOLOLOL

BTW, that think tank, "International Institute of Strategic Studies", is notorious for its liberal bias.

2000 down, 18,000 more to go. GO COALITION GO!

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-16-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 12:41pm
>>>With or without this war in Iraq, the terrorists still want to kill us. I would rather kill an Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, than to watch him fly a plane into another building in right here in the USA.<<

then why have a war with iraq since iraq had nothing to do with sept 11 (remember bush also stated this). so you are quite comfortable making americans in iraq a handy target for terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq?


while you keep screaming liberal liberal liberal, it is conservatives voices who are critical of the neo cons and this war in iraq and the continuing nightmare we are facing.

"Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension – urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another – has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."

"Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."

"Even Conservatives Are Wondering: Is Bush One of Us?:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040531&s=press

A much resepcted Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni has some words to say about this administration "Battle Ready" looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120823,00.html

Tell me is zinni a liberal or a republican? You will find the answer in the link provided above.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 12:50pm
<>

Yeah I know what you mean...being called a "blind American" or having "Bush loving blind patriotism" is also quite annoying.

Pages