Posted on 08/28/2007 7:26:03 AM PDT by 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
Totally missing my point. I never said or even thought "let OBL escape". NEVER. Only that killing/capturing him is not synonymous with victory. He has to be found, dead or alive, but just don't think that when we do find him, AQ will quit.
In truth, Iraq is an entirely separate issue as our leaders never did tell us that al-Qaeda was in Iraq...
Not true. Powell's presentation included the late Abu Zarqawi, who at the time was heading an affiliated group called Ansar al Islam in the Kurd region.
Also note that killing Zarqawi did not bring victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Don't misunderstand -- it has helped us get where we are now and as with OBL, I was all in favor of the Wanted Dead Or Alive policy on him, but I never thought killing him would make AQ lay down arms. And whaddaya know, I was right.
Iraq was not and is not even remotely "irrelevant". It had a long, long history of harboring and supporting Islamic terrorists, from Abu Nidal (Achille Lauro) to sending $25,000 to the parents of Palestinian suicide bombers. AQ was in Iraq before 2003 and even attending meetings with representatives of the Saddam government long before that in Sudan, brokered by Hassan al Turabi. There is also the airliner shell at Salman Pak that was used for training on taking over an airliner. There is also the fact that to this day, the Czech intel stands by its story that Mohammad Atta met with Iraq gov't reps in Prague prior to 9/11.
Saddam didn't have to be sitting at the table with OBL as they planned 9/11, he just had to be providing support for AQ of any kind at all. That, not WMD, was more than enough for me to declare war on Saddam whether he ever had WMD or not, and I think Bush made a bad decision by not emphasizing all this instead of emphasizing WMD.
But since you bring it up, it's indisputable that Saddam had WMD, and the absence of weapons was not enough. The burden was on him under the various UN resolutions to prove he had destroyed them. He refused. Instead throughout the 90's and in the run-up to the invasion, he played endless games with the inspectors, cheating and retreating. The Mossad says at least some of these weapons are in Syria. Satellite photos show a convoy of trucks going west across the Syrian border shortly before the invasion that the Mossad is convinced was carrying WMD.
Iraq, like nearly every Arab country, was also a client state of the USSR. According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, head of Caucescu's equivalent of the KGB who defected, these client states were taught a strategy called "sarindar", which means "quick exit", e.g., techniques for hiding WMD. There were various ingenious strategies for this. One great example was Libya, which managed to get one of its sites crossed off the CIA's list of potential illegal weapons manufacture. Knowing that American human intel in the region was non-existent and relied almost entirely on satellite imagery and telecom intercepts, they burned a bunch of tires in the courtyard of the site, creating the illusion that the place was on fire. As the tires burned, they painted scorch marks on the facility so after the fire was out, it would look to a satellite like the building really had burned.
It worked. Libya was taught this by Pacepa, and though he did not teach these techniques to the Iraqis himself, he says it is extremely unlikely that there were any USSR client states that weren't taught how to do this. The whole interview with Pacepa is a great read:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D162656E-9C26-4FF4-BE93-3C64CCC1FFCD}
Here's one of the money quotes from Pacepa:
Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddam’s WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find “more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes” containing documentation “dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear.” He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made “Sãrindar” plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a “spontaneous administration of tribal justice.” Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.
There are also vast areas of Iraq that haven't been searched, which would take years to cover even without having to fight off AQ, Saddam loyalists and Sunni and Shia militias. They found 30 Mig fighter-bombers buried in the sand west of Baghdad. (Just google "Migs in the Sand" if you don't believe me.) If they can do that, what might they have done with much smaller crates of chemical artillery rounds, etc? A lot easier to move and hide than a 60-foot long 20-foot high jets. They also discovered, per Charles Duelfer, a "just-in-time" delivery system to make bio weapons, dual use technology that could be converted almost overnight to weapons production with weapons coming off the line within 30 days of Saddam giving the order.
Last but not least, just the physical positioning of Iraq in the ME is very strategic. First, in combination with Afghanistan, it brackets Iran with two fledgling democracies, in part to serve as a morale boost for the majority of Iranians who don't exactly love their theocracy government. It sits central in the Gulf region, and controlling it means placing significant limits on the ability of our enemies to travel east-west. Most of all, as mentioned earlier, it takes away a base, bank, armory and training ground from Islamist terror orgs. So, no, Iraq was not and is not "irrelevant".
Thanks. I think this, or something like it, may have been posted before, but regardless, it shows what happens when intidimidation tactics are used against victims who have other options than to submit. And that goes for Islam as a whole, not just al-Qaeda...
bookmark
I like that pic of your nephew. Pretty amazing that any of them escaped the IED alive.
None of them were hurt enough to get a purple heart. Amazing doesn't really suffice... miraculous is the word you are looking for. Since then, he has been blown up a second time with an IED which was also just as bad. (I don't have photos, but it killed his Ipod in his chest pocket.) Still, not injured enough to get a purple heart. Then he was in an all day fire fight where he got to pop an AT4 into a building full of jihadist, call in an air strike to kill the rest and hold back an attack to protect over 100 of our troops. He got three confirmed that day which includes one of the bad guys being "blown in half" by his Barrett. He did get injured that day and was put in for a purple heart as well as recommended for a citation. (I heard it was a Silver Star, but no confirmation yet). The kid has the longest qualifying shot in the history of the US Army sniper training. He is a Ranger and he comes back in a couple months and plans on transferring from the 82nd to the 101st so he can rotate right back to Iraq.
I thank God above we have kids like this that brave 130 degree heat to kill our enemy. Pray for him and his family that he returns in good health.
Regards,
DocRock
LOL, but if you work for Alex Jones and RP, irrational feels comfortable.
Well, while you work on your groupthing let’s review the facts:
FACT: Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
He used them...several times.
FACT: The ceasefire agreement that ended hostilities required me to prove he had destroyed them all.
FACT: He did not, in fact, prove he destroyed them all.
FACT: When we invaded we did find prohibited weapons and yes, hundreds of shells filled with Chemical weapons.
FACT: When we invaded we did find documentation by which he had preserved the knowledge base for rebuilding all WMD programs.
FACT: When we invaded we did find documentation by which he had made known his intention to re-build his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted or as opportunity presented.
Which of those facts do you consider someone else’s “Trutherism”?
I don’t give a damn what the media writes, or what any administration official states. I have these facts here, and even they have no right to their own facts.
LOL!
Regarding Osama bin Laden...your new “tag line”.
We will continue to look for him.
When we find him we will kill him.
When he tries to communicate with his terrorists, we get closer to killing him.
In the meantime, please do not disturb the Americans who are busy killing his terrorists.
Saddam and Son's defense team blowing smoke!
Which fact-finding bodies are these? I actually used some of them, like the Duelfer Report from the Iraq Survey Group. Have you read any of it? As for why some of this stuff isn't trumpeted, it's something of a mystery and a source of frustration, but one very strong possibility is the risk of exposing sources and methods in some cases. Or maybe you work for the NY Times so you would like them exposed?
On the other hand, Bush has never come out and openly defended supply side economics either. But by your logic, that's proof that he never signed into law or even proposed any tax cuts.
The U.N., under whose auspices Bush wanted to invade, rejected that there was adequate evidence that Saddam possessed WMD.
Are you serious? You're touting the UN as a reliable source for anything?
The UN also rejected that they were involved in the Oil For Food Scandals. They, like France and Germany, had a financial stake in the status quo in Iraq. No amount of evidence would have convinced them. Kofi Annan, after endless cheat-and-retreats and the expulsion of UNSCOM weapons inspectors in the 90's, said of Saddam that "We can do business with this man." (Apparently he meant on a personal level involving his son and cronies.)
The UN also rejected the idea that Darfur technically qualifies as genocide and therefore refuse to do anything about it. They rejected the charges against them funneling aid intended for the NK people to Kim Jong Il. The UN apparently rejected the idea of sending peace-keeping troops into Africa that wouldn't rape underage girls. The UN includes on its Human Rights Commission countries that do not in any way, shape or form recognize human rights within their borders. While such tyrants sit on its Human Rights Commission, the UN rails constantly against America and Israel but not a peep is heard from them about Cuba or Syria or China or North Korea or Iran.
Shall I go on?
You have the right to a private truth.
Relativistic nihilistic nonsense. Facts don't care what anyone thinks of them.
I'm not objecting a great deal since it's not unusual. I just think you ought to admit it.
Objecting to what? Admit what?
If sanctions were lifted, then it would be legal anyway.
The UN resolutions and the terms of the '91 cease fire would still have been in place, so no it wouldn't be legal.
We gave him the anthrax cultures and aided his war against Iran.
We didn't give him VX or sarin or any of the other stuff. You can thank Germany for that. Over 50% of Saddam's military aid was from the USSR/Russia. 13% from France, and 5% from Germany. USA was less than 1%.
Your new tagline is a willful Harry Reid-esque distortion of what I and others have said. I will repeat for the last time that we definitely need to kill or capture OBL, I just vehemently dispute the notion that doing so will end the war. Apparently you think AQ will lay down arms if OBL is killed, but I don't. Can I make it any plainer?
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.