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

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 12:58pm
What does one Republican who acutally agrees with a Democrat have to do with anything? Does it prove anything indefinately? No...is it useless? Yup!

I know Democrats who support this war...not a lot but I know a few. What does that prove? Absolutely 100% nothing:)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 1:27pm
<>

I'll tell you why..Iraq had WMD and Saddam would probably have sold them or given them to terrorists. We might not have found many WMD, but they were there. We gave Saddam too much time either bury them or get them to Syria. There are links with Saddam and Al Qaeda. Read the following:

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-ivIraq&msg=2807.1&ctx=0

The war with Iraq is just another front in the war on terror. This is what people are forgetting. Fight them on other turf instead of letting them come here and kill us. Noone wants war, but sometimes it is necessary to protect ourselves. People get killed in wars, but that is the nature of war. I feel sad for every American life that is lost, but they gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect us. Again, I would rather kill a terrorists in Iraq than to let him be free to set off a dirty bomb in a populated city in the USA that would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 1:44pm

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.


What in the h*ll are you talking about?


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 1:55pm
<>

And your point? He is the President and he was voted to make those ultimate choices. if you don't support his decision it is something you need to deal with. He can't please us all and I'll tell you something, many people do support his efforts in Iraq to try and begin the end of terroris and are pleased.

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 2:31pm
I stand by my opinion. I've followed this trend of the liberal media from the second last UN resolution. The media has been at the forefront of appeasement and disinformation since the last resolution beginning with extensive coverage of the anti-war protests (whilst there was none for the pro-regime change rallies) through the extensive human shields fiasco (where those human shields realized Saddam actually welcomed the sacrifice of their lives for HIS benefit--hence they cut and ran back to their respective homelands) all the way to the present (lie about the actual AQ numbers: loss of fighters=rise in recruitment=growing ranks of new soldiers). Call it what you will if it makes you feel better. Despite the liberal disdain for conservative news sources, I consider ALL sources (both liberal and conservative) worthy of investigation, especially sources such as BBC, CNN, NYT, ABCCBSNBC, Boston Globe, etc. etc. Like I said earlier in this thread, if you don't like or want to hear what I have to say, just place me in your ignore list.

<>

Please define unilateralism. At last count, there were approximately 47 countries that decided to take action against Iraq.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 4:51pm
<>

It's a good place to start; we definitely need to tighten our borders and remain alert. Terrorism is a problem for many, many nations not only the US. IMO, we need to be working with other nations who are fighting the terrorists. Terrorists are individuals united in a transnational organization, aided by people in many countries. With such an enemy, a nationalist war is obsolete because it kills innocent civilians. When we kill innocents, we create more people who want to kill us. I realize it is reassuring to say, we will take the war to them, but it's not effective. Hunting terrorists using police methods is slow, time consuming, and frustrating--but that's the way other countries do it. Countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and India. Further, it is only with the help of moderate Muslims that the extremists can be identified and captured. Let's time to apply reason to combatting our fear. Anger makes people reckless and demeans the meaning of justice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:10pm

I stand by my opinion.


That's fine.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 7:40pm
It's been my observation on this board and also on the "War on Terrorism" board that there are posters who perceive anybody who questions the war (inception and conduct) as a liberal. I have stated several times that I'm an independent. Doesn't matter, the liberal tag keeps popping up.

As near as I can figure it, it's a form of bigotry. I have several thoughts in watching this mindset. First, the people who use the term "bleeding heart liberal" seem to see it as a pejorative.(there couldn't possibly be any validity to a liberal!) Secondly, it seems to me that the same group of people are authoritarian types--they believe in the power of force. Ergo, those who object to force, should be forced to be silent (the old "you're hurting the troops if you speak up" shtuff). I'm a little sensitive about this--been served heaping helpings of "stifle it".

Sometimes I wonder if it's the last recourse of those who can't justify what's happened in Iraq. Blame the messenger mentality.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 7:58pm
I'll say this again. I seem to get labeled "blind American" or "Bush follower" because of my aggreement and support of certain things Bush has done and said....wow looks like too many people throwing stones also seem to live in glass houses. Hmmmm
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-16-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 8:33pm
>>>What does one Republican who acutally agrees with a Democrat <<

I didn't say they agreed with a democrat, and it isn't one republican, it is many hard core republicans who are against this war with iraq and with the way the administration is handling it. so this constant whining about liberal bush bashing is a load of old cobblers.