Al-Qaeda 'spurred on' by Iraq war.
Find a Conversation
| 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.


Pages
even david kay said they didn't have any viable weapons of mass destruction.
>>>Saddam would probably have sold them or given them to terrorists.<<
probably? You think we should have based a war on probably?
>>>Fight them on other turf instead of letting them come here and kill us.<<
none of the sept 11th terrorists were iraqi, they were saudi and jordanian, pakistani and others, none iraqi. And just in case you missed it:
"TERRORISTS are in the United States and preparing to launch a major attack in the new few months, new "highly credible" intelligence indicates."
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9666897%255E2,00.html
war with iraq has not stopped saudi terrorists wanting to strike within the united states, only now it is easier to recruit angry muslims around the world because of our occupation of iraq.
<>
If countries who merely voiced their support, sometimes anonymously, but didn't lift a finger, or just said "sure, you can fly over our country" are counted, then the first Gulf War coalition would have numbered in the hundreds. Yet hawks are still fond of saying that the Iraq War coalition is larger.
(I'd give you a link, but I'm very short on time, and I've posted on this a number of times before. Check the War on Terror board, or what ever the Iraq War board is now called.)
I read plenty of conservative views in the media all the time, and can tune in to conservative slanted news on the TV when ever I want, 24 hours a day. I don't understand why conservatives keep harping about the "liberal media." It seems to me conservatives won't be happy until every last newspaper, magazine, TV show and website agrees with them. What's the deal?
What are you talking about? I used the numbers provided in the links you posted. I merely used simple math. 20,000 fighters MINUS 2000 EQUALS 18,000. How does that equal to a RISE in AQ rolls?
<>
Wow. I couldn't do that job at the moment. My plate is full enough as it is. :)
I can't speak to the appropriate/inappropriate analogy of glass houses since your reference was a bit ambiguous.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=524939
"The occupation of Iraq has provided a "potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qaida and probably increased worldwide terrorism, a leading thinktank said yesterday."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1224821,00.html
I am not sure why you are more qualified than generals and experts who have a educated grasp of the realities we face.
>>I feel sad for every American life that is lost, but they gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect us.<<
Yea, right! men and women joined up to serve their country, not serve the political interests of bush, cheney, wolfowitz, rumsfled and perle pushing the new american century and a war of choice.
>>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.<<
this is sadly a very naive belief and mistake.
"Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al Qaeda has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks, a report said Tuesday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54789-2004May25.html
Iraq has distracted our attention away from al queda and made it worse it seems. Why have we not captured bin laden?
,
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html
The media is trying to make it seem as though our fighting in Iraq has caused 18,000 NEW Middle Eastern men to join the ranks of al Qaeda. This is CNN's lead paragraph:
<<"Despite losses around the world, al Qaeda has more than 18,000 potential terrorists, and its ranks are growing because of the conflict in Iraq, a leading think tank warned Tuesday.">>
We find out where they get the number 18000 by reading further in the article. And for the life of me, I cannot see how this is considered JOINING (as in present tense) the ranks of AQ if they were already members of AQ to begin with.
<<"The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al Qaeda trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.">>
So the 18,000 number is all from people who were trained in Afghanistan BEFORE the Iraqi war. Keep in mind that this is LESS than the original number of 20000.
The 18,000 number is in no way associated with Iraq, but yet it is totally spun that way.
From the original article post #1..........
>"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". "<
Note: "conservative intelligence estimates"
>"that think tank, "International Institute of Strategic Studies", is notorious for its liberal bias."<
Please tell me
What are you talking about? I used the numbers provided in the links you posted. I merely used simple math. 20,000 fighters MINUS 2000 EQUALS 18,000. How does that equal to a RISE in AQ rolls?
Are you keeping in mind...How many did we
As a rule, labels fit cans better than they do people.
I love that!
Pages