Posted on 07/19/2005 4:11:02 AM PDT by Eurotwit
I think there are serious errors in your statements.
1.Sadam and AQ never were on the same page.
2.alzari actualy came to iraq after leaving Afganistan because his division was over run.More ironic is the fact when he came to Iraq he hooked up with the Kurdish group in the north(remember they are the allies the americans forgot about after Desert storm)
3.AQ and the other groups whom america calls terrorists only work together to elimanate the foriegn precence.After that there objectives are very different.
4.Would it not be easier to elimanate these so called terrorist if the U.S.A would re-examine there foriegn policies.I would bet if the american goverment would elimanate there support in Saudi Arabia and Eliminate there sponsership of a government that has violated the UN mandate for 38 years.You would see governments change yes, but not attacks on america.I hope people soon learn the problems are not as simple as what Mr. Bush would have you believe.Aq is not a terrorist organization to alot of muslims but a revolution to the masses.when you can change that belief you will win this so called WOT.I leave you with this"liberation comes from with-in if not then it is and always will be a occupation"Mike
hey AQ didn't rule Afganistan.They were the Talibans Guests in return for AQ's help in expelling the Russians.AQ used afganistan as a staging point for training and cordinating attacks abroad.Media tend to have us believe that there goal has always been to attack the U.S.A.However America did not become a target until the first gulf war when they armed the Saudis government and set up base there.It was at that point Saudis royalty became target two and the U.S.A moved to number.Till then Bin Laden was being armed and funded by the CIA to fight the russians.Look it up if you dont believe me.The funding continued untill 1990.AQ is not small either it is estimated that 150,000-200,000 were trained by the AQ from 1995-the present.Still today there are training camps in Afganistan and abroad.
Bin Laden, who I'd consider a head of al Qaeda, was much more than a guest of the Taliban
Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
MOSCOW, Aug. 30 [2001](UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported. Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement."Pseudo-religious values are being used as a cover to prepare a bridgehead for expansion of militant extremism and separatism far beyond the region's borders," added the statement.
Wow someone who now's a little history.You seem very intelegent and informed.I say to you-you must not be american lol.Ok AQ in Afganistan was not only a guest you are right but as far as governing this state it had little to do with it.After the russians withdrew its troops the country went into civil war and the taliban came out on top controling nearly eighty percent of the country when the americans began there attack.At that time Bin ladens group were securing areas already controled by the taliban in exchange for setting up base to train and organize.People believe that things are so simple as good vs evil.Millions of muslims believe and support AQ because what it stands for.Americans believe its stands for terrorism,but it much much more then that the western countries and a few others have exploited theese people for far to long.We have seen a empire of proud knowledgable people being surpressed by kings and dictators and puppet regimes witch declare they are democratic ever since world war One.the olny true democratic country in the region in the past twenty years has been Libiya.Funny enough the Americans considered it a rouge nation sponsering terrorist.Yes Libiya did fund other movements ie. the IRA and some other groups in latin america that they believed were also revolutions not terrorists.Lets face facts when governments are sponsered and supported by the industrialized nations movements have no other choice then to target soft targets and gurrila type war fare.The key to any peace anywhere in the world is not through force but rather fair foriegn policies and sometimes remaining neatral.P.s one question for you are you in Syria?Or is this name just a clever tool to stir up conversations with others on this site?
I can't agree with you because of...
Yet, each of those men helped free millions from oppression.
Hibiscus syriacus is the "Rose of Sharon," a shrub I like.
They'll "go to war" with the President over Supreme Court nominees. But they won't lift a finger to help fight the War on Terror in Iraq (or anywhere else).
Nuts.
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.