From a Terrorist Forum: Al Qaeda Strategy in Iraq Is Destroyed, What Can We Do? (We= Terrorists)

August 28 2007 | jveritas

[jveritas]

Below is a translated thread posted for discussion on a terrorist forum 3 days ago where an Al Qaeda sympathizer said that the "Islamic State in Iraq" which is led by Al Qaeda has been defeated in the provinces of Anbar and Diyala, and that they were only left with one last bastion which is the city and province of Mosul. He said that Al Qaeda old strategy was defeated and that they are now on the run, and that they must come up with a new strategy.

Beginning of the translation:

In the name of allah the most compassionate the most merciful

My Brothers I will leave this subject in your hand for constructive discussions and here it is:

Where is the Islamic State in Iraq heading after they left Anbar, after they left Diyala, after many Iraqis gathered around what is called the Alliance of the Tribes, and after the formation of the secret police. They (***Al Qaeda terrorists) left these areas and they are heading toward Mosul which is their last bastion. I swear to allah that they are our brothers (***Al Qaeda terrorists) and they are pieces of our own hearts but I plead with them to put a new strategy because their old strategy was destroyed and it had so many mistakes. Are they now in a state of Fleeing after they were in a state of offense? In this case it is not good news and allah help us.

Oh allah bring victory to the moujahedeen and I say this form a truthful heart and good intention that only allah knows. I will leave this subject between your hands to deliver it to the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State so they can prevent what they can prevent and allah help us. I want a solution, I do not want rhetoric, I do not want a fight between the members; we must come up with something.

End of the translation

[jveritas]

There is no doubt that Al Qaeda defeat in Iraq will greatly reduce their recruitment capacity and for many years to come. Of course we need to keep going after who ever is left from them.

[jveritas]

May be Harry Reid has more faith in the terrorists than the terrorists have faith in themselves. The man is a traitor.

[airborne]

I suggest they have a pig roast, and end the evening with a circular firing squad!

[jveritas]

I am sure that they will enjoy it a lot :)

[airborne]

I know I will!

[Zhangliqun]

It might be relevant to the families of 9/11 victims.

Saddam is deposed and executed. But Osama, who killed thousands of Americans, is "irrelevant" to the War On Terror?

First you to present yourself as Mr. Rational, all about facts and evidence. Now you're going for the Oprah award?

What the 9/11 families or anyone else feels about bin Laden is irrelevant to any reasonable definition of victory. Sure, everybody would like to see him at the end of a rope, but that would be just the cherry on top of genuine victory, not the victory itself. Ascribing anymore significance to it than that is pure emotionalism. If bin Laden is alive but is totally isolated with an overwhelming majority of his followers dead or otherwise incapacitated and no-one else interested in being thrown into the meat grinder, we win. If he's dead but the jihadi terror machine is alive and well, we lose.

My concern is that if people get caught up in using bin Laden's capture or death as the sole yardstick for victory, we could end up quitting too soon and lose.

[George W. Bush]

Now you're going for the Oprah award?

Skip the reward, just give me her money.

My concern is that if people get caught up in using bin Laden's capture or death as the sole yardstick for victory, we could end up quitting too soon and lose.

Letting Osama escape (or die of natural causes) is like letting Hitler slip out of Berlin alive, and saying, "Oh, Adolf? He's irrelevant. Only troublemakers would care to punish one of the greatest genocidal killers and threats to Western civilization ever known".

I don't think you can possibly parse the history of the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq without a focus on the mastermind who set it in motion. In truth, Iraq is an entirely separate issue as our leaders never did tell us that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded nor did we present such accusations when we (foolishly) sought U.N. approval for our invasion. The presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq after we subdued it only emphasizes the need to find and punish Osama, to humiliate him and to execute him forthwith. We cannot afford to reward major terrorists by letting them live. And we should revenge ourselves upon them without exception and without mercy to deter further acts of mass murder against our citizens.

I get a bit impatient with those who think it's just fine to let the biggest mass murderer in American history slip away and enjoy life and plot to kill more of us because he's somehow "irrelevant". If you want "irrelevant", Iraq was "irrelevant" to the War On Terror. So was Saddam. They were not involved in the attacks on 9/11. It was 15 Saudis, a Lebanese, an Egyptian and two others whose nationality I can't recall. No element of the attack was ever traceable to Iraq or Saddam unless you want to engage in some kind of reverse Trutherism where you can take all sorts of unconnected facts and events and somehow string together a fanciful narrative to try to prove that Saddam was connected with 9/11. Now, me, I don't go in for Truthers. I don't go in for all these weird conspiracy theories that somehow Saddam had some vast store of WMD when no proof of it exists and our own administration will not make such a public claim. Now, of course, many conspiracy-minded wingnuts on this site have all sorts of bizarre and fanciful ideas about these things but I do think that our president and the 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon generally are telling us the basic facts, probably withholding some info but basically the truth.

Osama must be killed or captured and executed along with all his henchmen.

[death2tyrants]

“Letting Osama escape (or die of natural causes) is like letting Hitler slip out of Berlin alive, and saying, “Oh, Adolf? He’s irrelevant. “

Who would possibly make such a comparison? Hitler’s incompetence was a great asset to the allies, whether it be the battle of the bulge, the miricle at dunkirk, or the ill-conceived attempt to hold stalingrad at all costs. The Nazis ran a centralized government in which all decisions needed Hitler’s approval. I’m guessing Al Qaeda doesn’t quite have the same command structure. Besides, the only ones using the We-haven’t-caught-Osama-yet excuse for pulling out of Iraq are the same ones who blame America for Al Qaeda’s aggression in the first place. These people have no interest in getting OBL anyhow. They simply use it as an excuse to retreat from AQI.

“I don’t think you can possibly parse the history of the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq without a focus on the mastermind who set it in motion.”

The mastermind, KSM, is now in U.S. custody. And we got intel from him at Club Gitmo. Let’s see where Ron Paul stands on Club Gitmo:

“Shut it (Guantanamo) down. The current rationale at Guantanamo is based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process protections. I support court decisions recognizing fundamental human rights, such as habeas corpus. Again, this is an issue that flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. As such, I see no purpose for continuing the facility.” -Ron Paul

Here, Ron Paul would actually award KSM, the MASTERMIND OF 9-11, ‘due process protections’ and apearently believes that KSM is entitled to protections from OUR constitution.

“In truth, Iraq is an entirely separate issue”

Here the defeatists attempt to paint our struggles against Al Qaeda in Iraq as being totally different from the war on terror, despite the fact that even Al Qaeda considers this the central front for their objectives.

“as our leaders never did tell us that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded”

They are there now and the defeatists want to retreat, particularly with the success of the surge.

“nor did we present such accusations when we (foolishly) sought U.N. approval for our invasion”

‘Saddam caused 9-11’ is a strawman. We didn’t ‘present such accusations’ because it is a strawman. We clearly accused Saddam of violating the resolutions regarding terrorism and the Council agreed unanimously. These violations are also cited the the congressional authorization against Iraq.

“The presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq after we subdued it only emphasizes the need to find and punish Osama, to humiliate him and to execute him forthwith.”

And Ron Paul’s plan to do this is?

“If you want “irrelevant”, Iraq was “irrelevant” to the War On Terror. So was Saddam.”

Both Congress and the Council concluded otherwise.

“No element of the attack was ever traceable to Iraq “

The shelf-life of this strawman is obviously beyond 4 years.

[Maelstrom]

In order for Osama to evade capture, he had to make himself irrelevant.

That’s a win/win for us.

Their ability to collect funds and build local affiliates is fully dependent upon the media.

They’ve lost Iraq, and they know it.

The three factions in Iraq are turning on Al Qaeda in increasing numbers, first and foremost, setting aside their differences in the process.

[Maelstrom]

Excuse me?

Terrorists on both sides?

Who, precisely are you talking about?

[George W. Bush]

Besides, the only ones using the We-haven’t-caught-Osama-yet excuse for pulling out of Iraq are the same ones who blame America for Al Qaeda’s aggression in the first place.

Again, you connect the two. Osama is the one who killed 3000 Americans and the one who inspires and probably directs some of the terrorists that have killed more American soldiers in Iraq.

Regardless of whether we stay in Iraq or withdraw, Osama is still important. He is and always was the central figure in the War On Terror.

Interestingly enough, it is me who is in agreement with the recent actions from Petraeus and Bush that are emphasizing action to capture Osama and his top leadership in Waziristan. Apparently, since even Obama and some of the Dims know it's good to capture/kill him, it seems you're rather isolated in current public and political opinion and actual policy.

Here, Ron Paul would actually award KSM, the MASTERMIND OF 9-11, ‘due process protections’ and apearently believes that KSM is entitled to protections from OUR constitution.

That is exactly what is going to happen, whether you like it or not. In order to imprison or execute him, you cannot use a military tribunal. Therefore, they'll resort to the sort of procedure we had with the trial of Manuel Noriega, a foreign dictator whose country we invaded so we could apprehend him, try him, and put him in prison in Florida.

And Guantanomo will be closed regardless. It's become a liability and its intel value is very low by now. If Bush and the new AG don't move on it, the courts will. Probably by next summer.

It would all move very quickly if we captured Osama and his remaining lieutenants. Bush's standing with the public would rise considerably and would confidence in his military policy. And Obama would face justice, not live in comfort plotting to kill more Americans and inspiring others to do the same, inspiring them simply by having killed so many and gotten away with it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush gets Osama finally. He's in legacy mode and Osama is a bad footnote in history to leave unresolved on his watch.

[George W. Bush]

I'm glad the administration and General Petraeus don't agree with you. They're pressuring Pakistan, preparing to move quietly on Waziristan province if necessary.

So if you don't like it, don't argue with me. Write a letter to your congressman or senator or the White House and try to convince them that Osama is just unimportant and they should just let him get away with killing 3,000 Americans with his suicide squads.

I'm surprised some of you seem so content to let Osama and the top al-Qaeda leadership escape justice.

[Maelstrom]

Your implication that I’m opposed to Osama bin Lately’s capture is ridiculous....as is most of what you’ve written.

We aren’t going to let him get away with anything.

However, it’s absolutely stupid to suggest that he be our only focus or even our primary focus.

It’s so stupid as to be *liberal* to suggest that we can’t do other things while also looking for him. You really should stop implying that.

[George W. Bush]

Your implication that I’m opposed to Osama bin Lately’s capture is ridiculous....as is most of what you’ve written. We aren’t going to let him get away with anything.

Yet you said:

In order for Osama to evade capture, he had to make himself irrelevant. That’s a win/win for us.

Your denials aside, you sure sound like you could care less as long as Osama disappears quietly. Trying to deflect attention from the fact that I noticed what you plainly said is only a shallow attempt to distract from your own comments and tossing in a throwaway you're-a-liberal attack is just typical grist for the mill.

[Romulus]

Anybody who incites mass fear to advance a political agenda is a terrorist. That includes politicians who propagate lies about imaginary threats.

[Maelstrom]

Name a few.

[Maelstrom]

I suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension.

You’ve a very clear straw man argument, but no clear rational thinking.

[Romulus]

I think we understand each other.

Since I already have a God, I am not that impressed by theories of American exceptionalism and manifest moral superiority.

If a politician thinks it would be a cool idea to embark on a high-risk course, he owes the country an honest argument, not a fear-driven stampede.

[Maelstrom]

No, I really don’t understand you.

I didn’t see you mention Nancy Pelosi, nor Mrs. Bill Clinton, nor anyone I know has lied about the Iraq war and events preceding it.

I haven’t seen you identify which arguments were lies, nor who stated them.

You owe me that much I believe.

[Fred Nerks]

FYI