Posted on 02/16/2003 6:15:09 AM PST by Catspaw
We're not at war with only bin Laden. He was just one kingpin in the world of organized terror.
We are at war with organized terrorism.
The blood of all of us who oppose fascism and anarchism.
Mrs. Fierro's warrior twin checks in!!!!
<|:)~
"Is there something I missed?" she asked.
Yes.
This has never been just about one man, Osama bin Laden. It is about a worldwide Islamic movement to destroy Western Civilization, create an Islamic World, covert everybody to Islam either voluntarily or by the sword, and institute Sharia Law forever.
That means your political, personal and religious freedoms are gone forever. You become a slave and all you hold dear is destroyed.
Iraq is part of this widespread, international, Mafia-like movement to conquer and destroy. Iraq is a prime repository of deadly weapons and money for the means to do so. It also is in a geographically crucial location to act effectively for our side or theirs. Take down Iraq and it's safe-haven, weaponry, and wealth and you have a dagger wedged between many of the rest of the prime actors who support these Islamic movements - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon. Taking down Iraq as a stronghold and refuge of terrorist movements will cause huge disruption in the other nation-state protectors of Al Qaeda and the many other terrorist groups. It will leave them all at a more strategic disadvantage as we proceed to break apart and kill this beast, piece by piece. It cannot all be done at once.
Iraq is a key component, not a sideshow, in our War On Terror!
This was never just about getting "Osama". That canard is just a distraction thrown up by the clever to distract the foolish, lady! Get used to it and stop being a dupe for the latest fashion in NewsMedia Speak and those who seek to dilute our determined campaign against this deadly, cataclysmic, Demonic threat.
You are misinformed. Baghdad regime is secularist, that is why Iraq waged 10 years war against Iran after shah's overthrow. Militant Islamists see Baghdad regime as enemy.
True, but irrelevant to the point.
that is why Iraq waged 10 years war against Iran after shah's overthrow
That was hardly Saddam's reasoning, although it may have had something to do with the Ayatollah's. Saddam's invasion of Iran had more to do with taking advantage of a chaotic Iranian situation to gain increased control over the oil-rich areas in southern Iran and the Gulf as well as his perceived threat of a Shi'ia resurgence in southern Iraq, which he saw as encouraged by the Iranian Shiite nutjobs.
Militant Islamists see Baghdad regime as enemy.
Again true, but again, you miss the point insofar as the danger to us and the cooperation with terrorist groups. There are numerous terrorist groups that operate directly out of Iraq or have territorial crossover rights and safe-haven from Iran to Syria/Lebanon.
Iran is the most serious queen bee of terrorism in the Middle-East, but most of these groups are also supported (financially, materially, intelligence-wise) by Iraq. It is in Saddam's strategic interest to join in the destruction of Israel and America influence in the area. When that is complete, he can turn his tender attentions on his other mafioso-like buddies, temporary brothers-in-arms in the neighborhood.
Taking out Iraq's present regime and destroying it's numerous dangerous weapons is a key to defeating Islamic Terrorism worldwide.
Saddam being "secular" is irrelevant. Of course, he would deny that. After all, he donated 12 quarts of his own blood to write a copy of the Koran, which he supposes gives him some bona fides among the Islamic faithful.
As Osama himself might put it, "He may not exactly be our friend, but he's our ally".
He, he. It is very relevant and in a very obvious way. You have a problem with noticing it.
that is why Iraq waged 10 years war against Iran after shah's overthrow
That was hardly Saddam's reasoning,
Yeah, sure, if you say so.
Iran is the most serious queen bee of terrorism in the Middle-East, but most of these groups are also supported (financially, materially, intelligence-wise) by Iraq.
Really, and the capital of Iraq according to you is Riyadh?!
It is in Saddam's strategic interest to join in the destruction of Israel and America influence in the area.
I do not know about strategic interest, but ideologically you could expect such hostility toward Israel and America from a secular Arab nationalist. This time you might be close to the truth.
It is very relevant and in a very obvious way.
Kindly indulge me and explain the "obvious"?
... and the capital of Iraq according to you is Riyadh?!
Of course not. Riyadh represents it's own nasty problem, and a very dangerous one at that. We will have to face that one some day, but today is not the day.
That does not in the least diminish the danger of Iraq to us now nor does it call for us to ignore the obvious, which means we ignore Iraq at our extreme peril. Iraq is merely the most urgent cancer. But there are many, many others and they are all urgent. We need to get on with this war without delay or hesitation over niceities.
This war features an international alliance of terrorist groups (way beyond the bin-Laden faction) who operate under the territorial, ideological, religious and material sponsorship of certain nation-states who either are actively involved or conveniently look the other way for whatever reasons. The alliances are often shifting.
The tenor of alliances is much like organized crime. These groups are often not a united front, but a collection of entities who sometimes are at each others throats and at other times are in each others arms, depending on the threat and perceived gains. But one thing is for sure - they are all against us, whatever their internal disagreements. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of Western society - whether secular or Christian - and the institution of their own slave-religion on all of mankind in all areas of life.
OK, I will use an analogy. If you have secularist, pro-abortion American liberal it is obvious that he will be very unlikely to support conservative Christian missions.
No, but they'll pay taxes to the same government and donate to the same Red Cross.
So, how does this let Iraq off the hook?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.