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

[George W. Bush]

Ah yes...and finally...it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the US military cannot be challenged, militarily by the terrorists in Iraq.

Did I say that? I don't see what I wrote that could make you think that.

That leaves the full power terrorists have against this nation relegated to political discourse.

Strangely, the government takes many actions that indicate they are not so confident about that. The idea that we have invaded Iraq so we can use it as a terrorism buffer state and killing field has become pretty threadbare. I've been expecting we'll have yet another shift in war aims upcoming, possibly yet this fall.

The terrorists did their homework, and openly admit that their intention is to use the liberals and other useful idiots who handed Vietnam to the communists to also give Al Qaeda power in Iraq.

Any warfare is about civilian populations, threatening to destroy them or their economies. It has been for the last century or more. This one is no different.

I think you don't grasp the demographics of Muslim nations and the nature of jihad. This is not a Vietnam or a Korea or a World War. It is most like the actions taken against the old Anarchists but against a much larger population base around the world.

[George W. Bush]

I would say that Iraq was where Al Qaeda chose to go to die against US soldiers. So far, they have not managed to cause more deaths than happened accidentally during peacetime.

The real al-Qaeda leadership and funding network is not fighting in Iraq. They are waiting, hiding, planning a larger attack. I do not believe, as you apparently do, that Osama is planning to die quietly. And it is quite unlikely he's hiding in some crude cave.

I like your analogy with Nazi Germany though...why don’t you show a little unity against the terrorists as the US did against all the Axis powers, including Japan...you’ve failed to do so little in this thread.

Actually, I'm the one interested in killing al-Qaeda as well as all other terrorists threatening Americans and, to a lesser extent, terrorists threatening other nations. You're the one with a fixation on Iraq, changing justifications for war, shifting war aims, your own fanciful interpretations of facts that have no connection with Pentagon or White House statements and policy, etc.

Finally, one more thing I believe you overlooked with your analogy with Hitler: We never killed Hitler.

But we would have, just as we executed his top henchmen where possible.

[Maelstrom]

We didn’t invade Iraq to use it as a killing field for terrorists.

We invaded Iraq to prevent a madman from following the 9/11 template.

The terrorists made it their killing field, and they are losing it.

Sure, any war is about the civilian populations, that doesn’t explain why you’ve chosen the rhetoric you use against our efforts...because that rhetoric definitely undercuts the civilian population.

[Maelstrom]

The real Al-Qaeda leadership and funding network is fighting and dying in Iraq.

That was established with the last intercept. There is no “Al Qaeda in Iraq” it was all directed by Al Qaeda as a foreign organization.

Where do you think you would be killing Al Qaeda?

I am not fixated on Iraq, I’ve merely recognized it as Al Qaeda’s chosen battlefield. The battlefield that matters is the propaganda battle...as you seem to now recognize.

Al Qaeda can lose Iraq. It is up to us, the pajamahadeen, to make sure that the rest of the world understands that with the loss of Iraq, Al Qaeda has lost their credibility.

Meanwhile, you’re here attempting to lend them credibility without Iraq or Afghanistan, and from a tactical point of view, that’s purely damaging to America.

SO WHY?

[George W. Bush]

The real Al-Qaeda leadership and funding network is fighting and dying in Iraq. That was established with the last intercept. There is no “Al Qaeda in Iraq” it was all directed by Al Qaeda as a foreign organization.

Make up your mind and get back to me.

Al Qaeda can lose Iraq. It is up to us, the pajamahadeen, to make sure that the rest of the world understands that with the loss of Iraq, Al Qaeda has lost their credibility.

Outside of FreeRepublic, I know of no one who believes that al-Qaeda could ever "win" in Iraq. You talk as though Osama was going to become their dictator and live in Baghdad or something. That was never going to happen anyway. Iraq has nothing to do with whether al-Qaeda is a threat to us. Regardless, they will be a threat to us until we hunt down the leadership and all of the funding sources. Ultimately, we are going to have to go after the Saudis and all the Wahhabist clerics.

Meanwhile, you’re here attempting to lend them credibility without Iraq or Afghanistan, and from a tactical point of view, that’s purely damaging to America.

I don't understand what you meant by "attempting to lend them credibilitity without Iraq or Afghanistan".

Your post is kind of incoherent.

[George W. Bush]

We invaded Iraq to prevent a madman from following the 9/11 template.

No one in government says this. No one else believes it.

Why can't you accept that our governments war justification was what they said it was in Congress, speaking before the U.N., countless speeches, etc.

[PGalt]

Thanks. Thanks for all of your work.

[jveritas]

You are welcome PG :)

[Maelstrom]

Bush said it.

[Maelstrom]

The only thing required for Al Qaeda to “win” in Iraq is for the US to leave.

It’s the Vietnam template the terrorists spoke of using.

Man, you’re so screwed up that I don’t think you’d admit an American win if Al Qaeda abandoned Iraq.

[George W. Bush]

Bush said it.

Provide the quote. Date and location please. I recall him saying many other things but not that.

[George W. Bush]

The only thing required for Al Qaeda to “win” in Iraq is for the US to leave. It’s the Vietnam template the terrorists spoke of using.

Iraq is not Vietnam. Admittedly, you probably are having trouble keeping your talking points straight because the administration for so long denied it was a Vietnam but now are saying that withdrawing could make it a Vietnam. Well, it's a hopelessly garbled message. Perhaps that is their actual intent and it may even fool most people.

The Dims were wrong to say Iraq is a Vietnam, the terrorist element is wrong to say it, BushCo is wrong to say it. Iraq is not and can never become a Vietnam. The fundamental conflicts in post-Saddam Iraq simply don't lead to a Vietnam situation.

Man, you’re so screwed up that I don’t think you’d admit an American win if Al Qaeda abandoned Iraq.

I think it's a sideshow. I think the real al-Qaeda leadership is focused on attacking us again at home. If we withdraw or beat down the terrorists (and Iranian operatives) in Iraq, we'll still face a very long situation involving internecine conflict between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq. The terrorists (and Iran) have primarily relied upon that and our presence to incite the local population to attack us and to harbor them. But they are as much outsiders as we are to many of the tribal elements who harbored them as freedom fighters for the last few years.

You might look at that other thread, look at Chertoff's recent statements and other things the administration has warned about an AQ attack on America this fall. Even if Iraq is going well, it's almost irrelevant to whether AQ can attack us here at home. We haven't even dented their recruiting base of terrorists among the 1 billion Muslims they can draw from.

[Zhangliqun]

My apologies — but it appears Bush has the right overall attitude, e.g., he would rather win the war first. Roosevelt had the same view in defeating Germany first before deciding what to do with Hitler, though Hitler apparently took himself out of the game before any such decision could be made.

Also, there’s no need for name-calling.

[CJ Wolf]

[George W. Bush]

You’re having way too much fun with that graphic. LOL.

[George W. Bush]

Also, there’s no need for name-calling.

I didn't notice your post before.

So, I have to retract calling you a twit. Apparently, Snopes and other sources have repudiated the quote as legitimate. There was a news conference where Bush said very similar things. But nothing where he said those same exact words. People are still trying to trace down the precise source of those "quotes".

I'm won't get into a "false but accurate" defense of those quotes here. But Bush relegated Bin Laden to an inconsequential status in his official WhiteHouse.gov press statements.

Fictitious Bush Quote

[George W. Bush]

BTW, if you don't have 32-bit graphics enabled on your desktop, you might try that. Your colors are kind of crunched.

If you have an original of it, you could post it via your server and I could use some optimizer utility on it, shrink the overall size, get better compression and image fidelity, then post it back to you. Just a thought.

[pierstroll]

How long until the next broadcast from the USA All-Missile channel?

[Zhangliqun]

Provide the quote. Date and location please. I recall him saying many other things but not that.

Would you do the same for your Bush quote....AND place it in context?

You also mentioned that we "would have" executed Hitler if he hadn't taken himself out first. But when do you suppose that would have happened? As with Goering & Co., it would have happened AFTER THE WAR WAS WON, and not a moment sooner. It will be the same with OBL, but you keep trying to skip to the trial before there's even an arrest, as if we could skip over something as apparently trivial and tangential to you as winning the war first.

And therein is my point I keep making but you keep evading so I will ask the question directly: Do you believe that killing or capturing OBL will end the war? There are only three possible answers -- yes, no, and I don't know. Choose one and make your case for it.

On a more general level, I don't seem to understand what your position on the war is other than it's either kill OBL and leave everybody else alone or you're just reflexively against whatever your opponents in here are for, or against whatever Bush is for. In other words, if you were calling the shots from 9/11 to this day, what would be your strategy/plan for defeating Islamic terrorism? Would it be just kill OBL and go home?

You've succeeded in mischaracterizing everyone's view, including the president (your quote below notwithstanding) that we don't care where OBL is or what happens to him. We do and Bush does, and for Bush, the proof is in the pudding. You KNOW that if they were looking for Saddam, his sons, Zarqawi, and all the other high level Baathists or jihadis who are -- please note -- now all dead, they are sure as hell looking for OBL with a vengeance. That Bush hasn't personally briefed you on what intel and the snake-eaters are doing to find him doesn't mean he isn't looking for him or that he doesn't care.

For yet another WW2 analogy, you seem to be suggesting that because we went after Germany we didn't care about Japan. Yes, it was "Germany first", but Japan didn't exactly get off light. They absorbed the two A-bombs, plus a LOT of conventional B-29 raids, some of which were even more destructive and deadly than both A-bombs together. And Tojo and his henchmen were executed too, but again not until the surrender was signed and hostilities ceased.

There is no-one in here who doesn't want to see OBL's head on a pikestaff. But our first concern is winning the war. If you believe it's all about getting OBL and nothing else, maybe you should change your tagline to read "I really don't know what constitutes victory. I have no idea and I don't care. It's not that important."

[Zhangliqun]

So, I have to retract calling you a twit.

Thanks.

Apparently, Snopes and other sources have repudiated the quote as legitimate.

I didn't see this until after my post above, so ignore the first part.