Terrorism in Iraq
Don Swayser
radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are fighting in Iraq.
So far they have managed to kill about 1,000 Americans in Iraq in 61,328
minutes and on 911 they killed 2800 Americans in 120 minutes. That's 1
American in every 6,328 minutes in Iraq and 23 every minute on 911.
Clearly their goal isn't simply killing Americas. And this is further
demonstrated by the fact that their principal targets are no longer
Americans but Iraqi citizens. The ratio of American/Iraqi deaths in
terrorist attacks is 1-25.
So what is their objective? Let's examine President Bush's strategy in
the war against terror. These terrorists are urban guerillas and their
requirements for operation are very similar. Here is a, admittedly a
probably incomplete, list.
1. A secure base for sanctuary and training.
2. Forged documents.
3. Money.
4. Intelligence.
All these used to be provided to Middle East terrorists by Soviet block
countries.
The secure base was Afghanistan. President Bush kicked that prop from
under them.
I don't know where they obtained their documents but a nation which
produces their own paper currency like Iran or Iraq is the most likely
source. The Taliban never printed any currency.
There's little doubt that Iraq was a primary source of funding for the
terrorists. For those who point to the absence of any proof as such I
will retract that if they can show me any proof that Adolph Hitler even
knew of the existence of the extermination camps. There is not one piece
of paper showing proof of such. Even in his most private conversations,
recorded as "table talk", even with his most intimate minister, Albert
Speer, he never once alluded to them. Hermann Goering, at his trial at
Nuremberg, could point to no such documents. Yet no one in their right
mind doubts he was the architect of the "final solution". How was this
possible in a nation of fanatical record keepers such as Germany?
Simple, he transmitted only verbal orders to Goering who then
transmitted them to Himmler.
Hussein supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel and is reported
to have given 1 billion dollars to Yasser Arafat. Anyone who doubts he
financially supported Al Qaeda is simply in as much a state of demented
denial as the people who claim Hitler knew nothing about the
extermination camps.
President Bush knocked yet another prop from under them by destroying
the Hussein regime.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now advocating that terrorist cells which can
act independently should. This is a serious compromise of the ability to
gather intelligence on potential targets. People start to recognize
faces they see time and again, even when they are strangers. Small units
, operating independently are forced to use the same people for
reconnaissance which renders them vulnerable to detection and destruction.
And while it is true that forged documents are available through
criminal sources that, again, leaves them wide open. Any worthwhile
prosecutor would gladly make sweet heart deals with forgers if they
could apprehend and prosecute a terrorist cell.
So, just what is the objective of the terrorists in Iraq?
I believe most people recognizes that Iraq is going to break apart in
civil wars as soon as possible. If that happens and the terrorists
possess the Sunni Triangle they will have replaced their base for
operations and training and money.
That's why any suggestion we should pull out of Iraq before we quash
these terrorist is short sighted.
Gregorio Roper
> It's a continual source of amazement to me that people, especially the
> radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are fighting in Iraq.
as you are.
mfg
gregorio
Don Swayser
I'm not at all creative. I have an appalling lack of that attribute. I
have the imagination of a newt. I simply analyze problems and draw
logical conclusions with the aid of established facts.
satman
"Don Swayser" <swa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:41A0BCBE...@optonline.net...
>
> It's a continual source of amazement to me that people, especially the
> radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are fighting in
> Iraq.
why do you use the term "terrorists"? I think they have every right to fight
against a foreign power which invaded their land, destroyed much of it,
killed many people and therefore they should be addressed as "resistance
fighters". Clearly they have every right to resist, as many did in WWII
agaist german occupation.... a small detail : the germans used to call them
terrorists as well..
I think that if my country invaded yours, you would also resist, wouldn't
you?
Art
Don Swayser wrote:
> It's a continual source of amazement to me that people, especially the
> radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are fighting in Iraq.
>
Terming the opposition "radiclib loons," is needlessly argumentative.
> So far they have managed to kill about 1,000 Americans in Iraq in 61,328
> minutes and on 911 they killed 2800 Americans in 120 minutes. That's 1
> American in every 6,328 minutes in Iraq and 23 every minute on 911.
> Clearly their goal isn't simply killing Americas. And this is further
> demonstrated by the fact that their principal targets are no longer
> Americans but Iraqi citizens. The ratio of American/Iraqi deaths in
> terrorist attacks is 1-25.
Cute statistics. The point, obviously, is that the World Islamic Front
Terrorists, the Iranians and the Insurgents are killing far more Iraqis
than American led coalition troops.
>
> So what is their objective?
You failed to answer this in the succeeding paragraphs. Most of what
follows is unfounded and irrelevant.
[snip]
>
> There's little doubt that Iraq was a primary source of funding for the
> terrorists.
There is no one, anywhere, claiming that the Ba'athists in Iraq were a
"primary" source of funding for the World Islamic Front Terrorists.
Except you.
Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Despite your analogy to the Nazi's
and the lack of a paper trail in their "final solution."
> For those who point to the absence of any proof as such I
> will retract that if they can show me any proof that Adolph Hitler even
> knew of the existence of the extermination camps. There is not one piece
> of paper showing proof of such. Even in his most private conversations,
> recorded as "table talk", even with his most intimate minister, Albert
> Speer, he never once alluded to them. Hermann Goering, at his trial at
> Nuremberg, could point to no such documents. Yet no one in their right
> mind doubts he was the architect of the "final solution". How was this
> possible in a nation of fanatical record keepers such as Germany?
> Simple, he transmitted only verbal orders to Goering who then
> transmitted them to Himmler.
Non sequitur. Irrelevant analogy. Fallacious assumption.
The tragedy is that of those who vehemently argue on either side of the
Operation: Iraqi Freedom issue, so few seem to see the facts that stare
them in the face. Both sides seem to feel the need to make up outrageous
claims, and put too much credibility into tenuous evidentiary connections.
You have provided NO foundation for your claim. Your characterization
that Iraq was a major source of funding to the World Islamic Front for
Jihad is patently false, prima facie.
However:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/
Salman Pak was many things. The above article proves, beyond the shadow
of doubt, that Ba'athist Iraq was an ally of The World Islamic Front for
Jihad in their mutual struggle against the West.
That is enough to have targeted Iraq as an unrepentant enemy in the War
on Terrorism...
>
> Hussein supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel and is reported
> to have given 1 billion dollars to Yasser Arafat. Anyone who doubts he
> financially supported Al Qaeda is simply in as much a state of demented
> denial as the people who claim Hitler knew nothing about the
> extermination camps.
No one is "in denial" since here there exists a painful absence of
proof. The connections between the Iraqi Ba'athists and Hezbollah and
Fatah were quite clear long before Arafat died. International banking
records are quite traceable.
>
> President Bush knocked yet another prop from under them by destroying
> the Hussein regime.
>
> Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now advocating that terrorist cells which can
> act independently should. This is a serious compromise of the ability to
> gather intelligence on potential targets. People start to recognize
> faces they see time and again, even when they are strangers. Small units
> , operating independently are forced to use the same people for
> reconnaissance which renders them vulnerable to detection and destruction.
>
> And while it is true that forged documents are available through
> criminal sources that, again, leaves them wide open. Any worthwhile
> prosecutor would gladly make sweet heart deals with forgers if they
> could apprehend and prosecute a terrorist cell.
Look, you don't seem to understand the process of counterfeiting
documents. At all.
You should probably drop this part of your argument until you do some
research. You don't even need all the equipment found in a Kinko's to
forge any ID document used by any Government anywhere. Counterfeiting
most money is only a little more difficult.
>
> So,just what is the objective of the terrorists in Iraq?
You've spent the entire post NOT answering this question
>
> I believe most people recognizes that Iraq is going to break apart in
> civil wars as soon as possible. If that happens and the terrorists
> possess the Sunni Triangle they will have replaced their base for
> operations and training and money.
Look, there are important differences between insurgent activity,
insurrection, and civil war. Iraq is in no way a unified country, and
whether or not the situation there will devolve into a civil war is
still largely speculation.
What you have failed to answer is your own question:
The Insurgents and World Islamic Front Terrorists are fighting to both
end the Coalition Occupation and to defeat the establishment of a
Republic in Iraq.
>
> That's why any suggestion we should pull out of Iraq before we quash
> these terrorist is short sighted.
>
Indeed. In fact, it could be argued that the United States enforced
UNSC Resolution 1441 in order to set up the perfect conditions to fight
the World Islamic Front Terrorists. And they have been quite obliging.
Osama Bin Laden recently (November 1) admitted that he has lost 15,000
fighters in Iraq to date.
15:1 seems rather indicative of success for the United States.
---
Art
Don Swayser
Iranians are fighting in Iraq against the power which invaded "their
land". Maybe you haven't heard but the terrorists purported leader Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi is Jordanian.
These terrorists are killing Iraqis at the rate of 25 for every American.
The IRA were named as terrorist when they blew up Irish citizens,
weren't they? Bader Meinhof were considered terrorist when they
kidnapped and murdered Germans, weren't they? Timothy McVeigh was
considered a terrorist, wasn't he?
terrorist :Noun
1. A radical who employs terror as a political weapon.
Don Swayser
>
>
> Don Swayser wrote:
>
>> It's a continual source of amazement to me that people, especially the
>> radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are fighting in
>> Iraq.
>>
>
> Terming the opposition "radiclib loons," is needlessly argumentative.
>
>
>> So far they have managed to kill about 1,000 Americans in Iraq in
>> 61,328 minutes and on 911 they killed 2800 Americans in 120 minutes.
>> That's 1 American in every 6,328 minutes in Iraq and 23 every minute
>> on 911. Clearly their goal isn't simply killing Americas. And this is
>> further demonstrated by the fact that their principal targets are no
>> longer Americans but Iraqi citizens. The ratio of American/Iraqi
>> deaths in terrorist attacks is 1-25.
>
>
>
> Cute statistics. The point, obviously, is that the World Islamic Front
> Terrorists, the Iranians and the Insurgents are killing far more Iraqis
> than American led coalition troops.
>
>
>>
>> So what is their objective?
>
>
>
> You failed to answer this in the succeeding paragraphs. Most of what
> follows is unfounded and irrelevant.
>
> [snip]
>
Well, that sure is a sparkling rebuttal.
>
>>
>> There's little doubt that Iraq was a primary source of funding for the
>> terrorists.
>
>
>
> There is no one, anywhere, claiming that the Ba'athists in Iraq were a
> "primary" source of funding for the World Islamic Front Terrorists.
>
> Except you.
>
> Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Despite your analogy to the Nazi's
> and the lack of a paper trail in their "final solution."
>
I stated the conditions under which I'd retract that statement. There's
a similar lack of evidence that Hitler was aware of the extermination
camps. I leave it to people to draw their own conclusions about the
significance of what such a lack of evidence might indicate.
>> For those who point to the absence of any proof as such I will retract
>> that if they can show me any proof that Adolph Hitler even knew of the
>> existence of the extermination camps. There is not one piece of paper
>> showing proof of such. Even in his most private conversations,
>> recorded as "table talk", even with his most intimate minister, Albert
>> Speer, he never once alluded to them. Hermann Goering, at his trial at
>> Nuremberg, could point to no such documents. Yet no one in their right
>> mind doubts he was the architect of the "final solution". How was this
>> possible in a nation of fanatical record keepers such as Germany?
>> Simple, he transmitted only verbal orders to Goering who then
>> transmitted them to Himmler.
>
>
>
> Non sequitur. Irrelevant analogy. Fallacious assumption.
>
Why don't you explain why it is irrelevant. There is no assumption
except that Hitler knew of the camps but that is a foregone conclusion
since such a process in a totalitarian dictatorship would prove fatal to
anyone proceeding with such an enterprise without the dictators knowledge.
> The tragedy is that of those who vehemently argue on either side of the
> Operation: Iraqi Freedom issue, so few seem to see the facts that stare
> them in the face. Both sides seem to feel the need to make up outrageous
> claims, and put too much credibility into tenuous evidentiary connections.
>
> You have provided NO foundation for your claim. Your characterization
> that Iraq was a major source of funding to the World Islamic Front for
> Jihad is patently false, prima facie.
>
Oh, you think it is false based on a lack of proof. A negative is proven
by a negative? Curious.
> However:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/
>
> Salman Pak was many things. The above article proves, beyond the shadow
> of doubt, that Ba'athist Iraq was an ally of The World Islamic Front for
> Jihad in their mutual struggle against the West.
>
> That is enough to have targeted Iraq as an unrepentant enemy in the War
> on Terrorism...
>
>
>>
>> Hussein supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel and is reported
>> to have given 1 billion dollars to Yasser Arafat. Anyone who doubts he
>> financially supported Al Qaeda is simply in as much a state of
>> demented denial as the people who claim Hitler knew nothing about the
>> extermination camps.
>
>
>
> No one is "in denial" since here there exists a painful absence of
> proof. The connections between the Iraqi Ba'athists and Hezbollah and
> Fatah were quite clear long before Arafat died. International banking
> records are quite traceable.
>
Maybe you missed the qualifier. I said "anyone who believes". Do you
think you can speak for them?
>
>>
>> President Bush knocked yet another prop from under them by destroying
>> the Hussein regime.
>>
>> Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now advocating that terrorist cells which can
>> act independently should. This is a serious compromise of the ability
>> to gather intelligence on potential targets. People start to
>> recognize faces they see time and again, even when they are strangers.
>> Small units , operating independently are forced to use the same
>> people for reconnaissance which renders them vulnerable to detection
>> and destruction.
>>
>> And while it is true that forged documents are available through
>> criminal sources that, again, leaves them wide open. Any worthwhile
>> prosecutor would gladly make sweet heart deals with forgers if they
>> could apprehend and prosecute a terrorist cell.
>
> Look, you don't seem to understand the process of counterfeiting
> documents. At all.
>
> You should probably drop this part of your argument until you do some
> research. You don't even need all the equipment found in a Kinko's to
> forge any ID document used by any Government anywhere. Counterfeiting
> most money is only a little more difficult.
>
>
>>
>> So,just what is the objective of the terrorists in Iraq?
>
>
>
>
> You've spent the entire post NOT answering this question
>
>
>>
>> I believe most people recognizes that Iraq is going to break apart in
>> civil wars as soon as possible. *If that happens and the terrorists
>> possess the Sunni Triangle they will have replaced their base for
>> operations and training and money.*
>
>
>
> Look, there are important differences between insurgent activity,
> insurrection, and civil war. Iraq is in no way a unified country, and
> whether or not the situation there will devolve into a civil war is
> still largely speculation.
>
I don't think it is speculative. Iraq is a conglomeration of
ethnic/religious groups as antithetical as that which existed in
Yugoslavia. Iraq is c.75% Arab and 15% Kurdish. The Kurds wrenched semi
autonomy from Saddam Hussein and were slaughtered by Hussein's military
forces in the "Anfal Campaign" and the military was controlled by Arab
Sunnis from the Sunni triangle. They have suffered repression from the
days of the Ottoman Empire up to the end of Hussein's regime. They won't
easily allow themselves to be placed in a situation in which that
repression can be renewed. Yet that is what will happen in a democratic
election in which the majority, the Shi'ites (60%), will have the
ability to form a government of their own choice. The Shi'ite branch of
the religion have historically preferred a clerical form of government
in which the religious leaders are the national leadership while the
Sunnis are much more inclined toward a secular form of government.
Yugoslavia was formed by the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919 as Iraq was
by the Treaty of Serves in the same year. That nation was principally
comprised of Croats, Slovenes and Serbs. They were held together by
Tito. What was Yugoslavia is now Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia.
Czechoslovakia was yet another creation of St. Germain and no longer
exists. Now, in its former territory, are the Czech Republic and
Slovakia. Each of these nations broke into logical partitions.
Sure, it's supposition that the same thing will happen in Iraq, but that
conclusion is supported by historical precedent.
> What you have failed to answer is your own question:
>
Really? I guess you missed where I said;
"If that happens and the terrorists possess the Sunni Triangle they will
have replaced their base for operations and training and money."
Scroll up a few paragraphs and you'll see I marked it for you with
asterisks.
Especially pertinent is the bit where I said "replaced their base for
operations and training and money".
> The Insurgents and World Islamic Front Terrorists are fighting to both
> end the Coalition Occupation and to defeat the establishment of a
> Republic in Iraq.
>
Well, that sure an answer for why.
>
>>
>> That's why any suggestion we should pull out of Iraq before we quash
>> these terrorist is short sighted.
>>
> Indeed. In fact, it could be argued that the United States enforced UNSC
> Resolution 1441 in order to set up the perfect conditions to fight
> the World Islamic Front Terrorists. And they have been quite obliging.
>
>
> Osama Bin Laden recently (November 1) admitted that he has lost 15,000
> fighters in Iraq to date.
>
> 15:1 seems rather indicative of success for the United States.
>
> ---
> Art
>
>
Thanks for the cogent post Art. Excuse any vexatious remarks, they
weren't meant to be.
satman
>
> Yeah, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Sudanese, Yemenis and Iranians
> are fighting in Iraq against the power which invaded "their land". Maybe
> you haven't heard but the terrorists purported leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
> is Jordanian.
and the power which invaded Iraq, did not declare war against it.... they
just went in.... just because they asked Saddam to step away or...
If you ask the rest of the world the question : which is the most dangerous
terrorist in the world now? the answer is: USA.
I think you already know this, if you do not get your news solely from the
US media and you read some free press and opinions on the net...
BTW... all those Iraqis- just the Iraqi citizens - who are now fighting
against those "brave US soldiers" who went there to liberate them, do
qualify for the term " resistance fighter", don't they?
>
> These terrorists are killing Iraqis at the rate of 25 for every American.
> The IRA were named as terrorist when they blew up Irish citizens, weren't
> they? Bader Meinhof were considered terrorist when they kidnapped and
> murdered Germans, weren't they? Timothy McVeigh was considered a
> terrorist, wasn't he?
Yes, and Saddam was a very close friend of the US, Osama was funded by the
CIA, Arafat was a terrorist for the US until he received the Nobel Peace
Prize and then was greeted by the US president as a head of State .... and
... and....would you like me to go on and on ???
Gregorio Roper
> Gregorio Roper wrote:
>
>> Don Swayser wrote:
>>
>>> It's a continual source of amazement to me that people, especially
>>> the radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are
>>> fighting in Iraq.
>>
>>
>> They do ask themselves. They just aren't as creative about the answers
>> as you are.
>>
> have the imagination of a newt. I simply analyze problems and draw
> logical conclusions with the aid of established facts.
Well, there are several weaknesses in your argumentation.
> So what is their objective? Let's examine President Bush's strategy in the war against terror. These terrorists are urban guerillas and their requirements for operation are very similar. Here is a, admittedly a probably incomplete, list.
>
> 1. A secure base for sanctuary and training.
>
> 2. Forged documents.
>
> 3. Money.
>
> 4. Intelligence.
Terrorists do not necessarily have much in common with urban guerrillas.
Terrorism is just a tactic, that guerrillas may resort to. Terrorist
does not necessarily need a secure base, they can live right here, among
us. Just recently (as an example) a small training camp, supposedly used
by islamic terrorists, was discovered on a farm in the Netherlands.
However, the actual skills, terrorists need can not be compared to that
of regular combatants. You don't need to be an expert marksman to poison
a water supply or to set off a bomb. You need to acquire the necessary
materials for your attack in secrecy and strike before you can be
identified.
Forging documents is not a problem either. You can actually use your
real identity if you are planning a suicide mission. All you need to do,
is keep a clean record until the terrorist attack.
As for money, There are Al Qaeda sympathizers all over the world, in
addition terrorists, willing to contribute money to their cause. I would
assume that there are certain links to organized crime, too.
Let us suppose, the terrorists are logically thinking men, why would
they concentrate their efforts on Iraq? As you said, there are a lot of
reasons, but shouldn't it be obvious that they cannot win against the US
army?
In my opinion, the answer is that they are not trying to defeat the US
troops, they are trying to convince more muslims to fight with them.
They are clearly trying to force an escalation by all means, and
Fallujah with all the bad press it brought for the U.S. was clearly a
success. I mean, just look at what Al Jazeera is reporting. There are a
lot of people who believe that stuff.
- Then, again I'm far too tired to reason why these Terrorists are doing
what they do, they don't seem to think the way I think, and whatever
appears logical to me may not seem to logical to them.
After all, they may really believe they could defeat the U.S. army or
they could just try to appear to fight for the liberation of Iraq to
recruit a lot of new members. (don't have time to continue my rambling,
I have some guests tonight).
mfg
gregorio
Art
Don Swayser wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Don Swayser wrote:
>>
>>> It's a continual source of amazement to me that people, especially
>>> the radiclib loons, fail to ask themselves why terrorists are
>>> fighting in Iraq.
>>>
>>
>> Terming the opposition "radiclib loons," is needlessly argumentative.
>>
> Of course it is. :)
Heh.
>
>>
>>> So far they have managed to kill about 1,000 Americans in Iraq in
>>> 61,328 minutes and on 911 they killed 2800 Americans in 120 minutes.
>>> That's 1 American in every 6,328 minutes in Iraq and 23 every minute
>>> on 911. Clearly their goal isn't simply killing Americas. And this is
>>> further demonstrated by the fact that their principal targets are no
>>> longer Americans but Iraqi citizens. The ratio of American/Iraqi
>>> deaths in terrorist attacks is 1-25.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cute statistics. The point, obviously, is that the World Islamic Front
>> Terrorists, the Iranians and the Insurgents are killing far more
>> Iraqis than American led coalition troops.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So what is their objective?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You failed to answer this in the succeeding paragraphs. Most of what
>> follows is unfounded and irrelevant.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
> Well, that sure is a sparkling rebuttal.
>
Nevertheless, it is also a true statement.
>>
>>>
>>> There's little doubt that Iraq was a primary source of funding for
>>> the terrorists.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no one, anywhere, claiming that the Ba'athists in Iraq were a
>> "primary" source of funding for the World Islamic Front Terrorists.
>>
>> Except you.
>>
>> Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Despite your analogy to the
>> Nazi's and the lack of a paper trail in their "final solution."
>>
> I stated the conditions under which I'd retract that statement. There's
> a similar lack of evidence that Hitler was aware of the extermination
> camps. I leave it to people to draw their own conclusions about the
> significance of what such a lack of evidence might indicate.
But the similar lack of evidence for Hitler's authorization of the final
solution is unrelated.
Sure, it's similar in kind and circumstance--but obviously, if I could
produce a relevant directive from Himmler with Hitler's signature--this
would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether your statements about the
terrorists and insurgents in Iraq were true or not.
Despite your willingness to retract.
>
>>> For those who point to the absence of any proof as such I will
>>> retract that if they can show me any proof that Adolph Hitler even
>>> knew of the existence of the extermination camps. There is not one
>>> piece of paper showing proof of such. Even in his most private
>>> conversations, recorded as "table talk", even with his most intimate
>>> minister, Albert Speer, he never once alluded to them. Hermann
>>> Goering, at his trial at Nuremberg, could point to no such documents.
>>> Yet no one in their right mind doubts he was the architect of the
>>> "final solution". How was this possible in a nation of fanatical
>>> record keepers such as Germany? Simple, he transmitted only verbal
>>> orders to Goering who then transmitted them to Himmler.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Non sequitur. Irrelevant analogy. Fallacious assumption.
>>
> Why don't you explain why it is irrelevant.
Because, as I say above, the cases are unrelated.
> There is no assumption
> except that Hitler knew of the camps but that is a foregone conclusion
> since such a process in a totalitarian dictatorship would prove fatal to
> anyone proceeding with such an enterprise without the dictators knowledge.
Which is how Scott Peterson got convicted. And, most likely, rightly so.
>
>> The tragedy is that of those who vehemently argue on either side of
>> the Operation: Iraqi Freedom issue, so few seem to see the facts that
>> stare them in the face. Both sides seem to feel the need to make up
>> outrageous claims, and put too much credibility into tenuous
>> evidentiary connections.
>>
>> You have provided NO foundation for your claim. Your characterization
>> that Iraq was a major source of funding to the World Islamic Front for
>> Jihad is patently false, prima facie.
>>
> Oh, you think it is false based on a lack of proof. A negative is proven
> by a negative? Curious.
>
No, a lack of proof would make your statement conjecture, which it does,
and your statement is, in fact, conjecture.
State is not on record anywhere with the opinion that Saddam was a major
source of funds for Fatah. Especially not as a major source of funding
for Bin Laden's group.
>> However:
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/
>>
>> Salman Pak was many things. The above article proves, beyond the
>> shadow of doubt, that Ba'athist Iraq was an ally of The World Islamic
>> Front for Jihad in their mutual struggle against the West.
>>
>> That is enough to have targeted Iraq as an unrepentant enemy in the
>> War on Terrorism...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hussein supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel and is
>>> reported to have given 1 billion dollars to Yasser Arafat. Anyone who
>>> doubts he financially supported Al Qaeda is simply in as much a state
>>> of demented denial as the people who claim Hitler knew nothing about
>>> the extermination camps.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No one is "in denial" since here there exists a painful absence of
>> proof. The connections between the Iraqi Ba'athists and Hezbollah and
>> Fatah were quite clear long before Arafat died. International banking
>> records are quite traceable.
>>
> Maybe you missed the qualifier. I said "anyone who believes". Do you
> think you can speak for them?
>
Yes, I can be a devil's advocate. the only reason I responded to your
post in the first place was that I want those who have a fairly
reasonable perspective on the Iraqi conflict to present their viewpoint
with /valid/ arguments.
I have a real problem with advocates of Operation: Iraqi Freedom using
logical fallacies to bolster their arguments.
They ain't gonna get their theocracy. Period.
>
> Yugoslavia was formed by the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919 as Iraq was
> by the Treaty of Serves in the same year. That nation was principally
> comprised of Croats, Slovenes and Serbs. They were held together by
> Tito. What was Yugoslavia is now Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia.
> Czechoslovakia was yet another creation of St. Germain and no longer
> exists. Now, in its former territory, are the Czech Republic and
> Slovakia. Each of these nations broke into logical partitions.
The Civil War was written into the text of the United States
Constitution. It was...inevitable.
Civil War is not as inevitable in Iraq, but should it come, the outcome
and conclusion is not foregone.
> Sure, it's supposition that the same thing will happen in Iraq, but that
> conclusion is supported by historical precedent.
Yes, but the 170,000 coalition troops will not leave them high and dry.
This, of course, has and will continue to make all the difference.
>
>> What you have failed to answer is your own question:
>>
> Really? I guess you missed where I said;
>
> "If that happens and the terrorists possess the Sunni Triangle they will
> have replaced their base for operations and training and money."
>
> Scroll up a few paragraphs and you'll see I marked it for you with
> asterisks.
>
> Especially pertinent is the bit where I said "replaced their base for
> operations and training and money".
The terrorists don't and won't posses the Sunni Triangle. They operate
there because they can, because of the insurgent's alliance with them.
And, of course, the most confusing thing about anyone's arguments pro
and con about the Iraqi Conflict is just exactly what the term "the
terrorists" means.
>
>> The Insurgents and World Islamic Front Terrorists are fighting to both
>> end the Coalition Occupation and to defeat the establishment of a
>> Republic in Iraq.
>>
> Well, that sure an answer for why.
Why they are fighting to end the coalition's occupation and preventing
the establishment of the Republic is the /key/.
>
>>
>>>
>>> That's why any suggestion we should pull out of Iraq before we quash
>>> these terrorist is short sighted.
>>>
>> Indeed. In fact, it could be argued that the United States enforced
>> UNSC Resolution 1441 in order to set up the perfect conditions to fight
>> the World Islamic Front Terrorists. And they have been quite obliging.
>>
>>
>> Osama Bin Laden recently (November 1) admitted that he has lost 15,000
>> fighters in Iraq to date.
>>
>> 15:1 seems rather indicative of success for the United States.
>>
>> ---
>> Art
>>
>>
> Thanks for the cogent post Art. Excuse any vexatious remarks, they
> weren't meant to be.
Heh. Listen, Junior, you don't know what vexatious can be.
---
Art
>
Don Swayser
The operative word here is "discovered", isn't it?
> However, the actual skills, terrorists need can not be compared to that
> of regular combatants. You don't need to be an expert marksman to poison
> a water supply or to set off a bomb. You need to acquire the necessary
> materials for your attack in secrecy and strike before you can be
> identified.
You need oodles of training to MAKE a bomb. There's a term used for
untrained people making bombs, splattered.
> Forging documents is not a problem either. You can actually use your
> real identity if you are planning a suicide mission. All you need to do,
> is keep a clean record until the terrorist attack.
> As for money, There are Al Qaeda sympathizers all over the world, in
> addition terrorists, willing to contribute money to their cause. I would
> assume that there are certain links to organized crime, too.
>
If you have links to organized crime you're making yourself vulnerable.
Almost any persecutor would give a walk to an accused murderer to break
a terrorist cell.
> Let us suppose, the terrorists are logically thinking men, why would
> they concentrate their efforts on Iraq? As you said, there are a lot of
> reasons, but shouldn't it be obvious that they cannot win against the US
> army?
> In my opinion, the answer is that they are not trying to defeat the US
> troops, they are trying to convince more muslims to fight with them.
> They are clearly trying to force an escalation by all means, and
> Fallujah with all the bad press it brought for the U.S. was clearly a
> success. I mean, just look at what Al Jazeera is reporting. There are a
> lot of people who believe that stuff.
>
Yes it is obvious and it's also obvious that no matter how many the
enlist to fight with them they still won't be able to defeat us, and
they must know that, so we're back to square one, why are they doing it?
Don Swayser
> "Don Swayser" <swa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:41A0D50B...@optonline.net...
>
>>Yeah, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Sudanese, Yemenis and Iranians
>>are fighting in Iraq against the power which invaded "their land". Maybe
>>you haven't heard but the terrorists purported leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
>>is Jordanian.
>
> and the power which invaded Iraq, did not declare war against it.... they
> just went in.... just because they asked Saddam to step away or...
> If you ask the rest of the world the question : which is the most dangerous
> terrorist in the world now? the answer is: USA.
Why should I ask them? I don't care what they think.
> I think you already know this, if you do not get your news solely from the
> US media and you read some free press and opinions on the net...
>
Yeah, and guess what, I still don't care. And by "the rest of the world"
you're referring to Eurostan and Muslim nations.
> BTW... all those Iraqis- just the Iraqi citizens - who are now fighting
> against those "brave US soldiers" who went there to liberate them, do
> qualify for the term " resistance fighter", don't they?
>
They aren't fighting Americans. They're blowing up Iraqi citizens and
that makes them terrorists.
>
>
>>These terrorists are killing Iraqis at the rate of 25 for every American.
>>The IRA were named as terrorist when they blew up Irish citizens, weren't
>>they? Bader Meinhof were considered terrorist when they kidnapped and
>>murdered Germans, weren't they? Timothy McVeigh was considered a
>>terrorist, wasn't he?
>
>
> Yes, and Saddam was a very close friend of the US, Osama was funded by the
> CIA, Arafat was a terrorist for the US until he received the Nobel Peace
> Prize and then was greeted by the US president as a head of State .... and
> ... and....would you like me to go on and on ???
>
Hussein was NEVER a close friend of the US. We never sold him as much as
a rifle. Yeah, we supported bin Laden while the Soviets were attacking
Afghanistan. We also sent Stalin hundreds of millions of war aid during
World War 2, so what? And, to the best of my memory, Arafat was never
greeted as a head of state in this country by a Republican president.
Now, by all means, continue.
satman
>>
>> and the power which invaded Iraq, did not declare war against it.... they
>> just went in.... just because they asked Saddam to step away or...
>> If you ask the rest of the world the question : which is the most
>> dangerous terrorist in the world now? the answer is: USA.
>
> Why should I ask them? I don't care what they think.
well , if you don't care what they think, then there is no point arguing
about it, right?... but then, you will eventually end up isolated from
almost every international body...The arrogance of not caring about what the
rest of the owlrd, eventually pays !!
>> I think you already know this, if you do not get your news solely from
>> the US media and you read some free press and opinions on the net...
>>
> Yeah, and guess what, I still don't care. And by "the rest of the world"
> you're referring to Eurostan and Muslim nations.
well. again, if you don't care, why post on this newsgroup !!! keep your
opinions for yourself... we will -the rest of the world - talk about it
again, when you will change your mind..and history says that such arrogance
always pays (Ancient Greece- Rome- Byzantium, GermanyWWII etc...)
>
>> BTW... all those Iraqis- just the Iraqi citizens - who are now fighting
>> against those "brave US soldiers" who went there to liberate them, do
>> qualify for the term " resistance fighter", don't they?
>>
> They aren't fighting Americans. They're blowing up Iraqi citizens and that
> makes them terrorists.
at least they are killing each other, so do many americans in major
cities... you know : the right to bear arms and all that *****it..
But when a suicide bomber kills himself along with a couple of US military
personnel, is he still a terrorist???
and if you were in his place, wanting to resist occupation, with the
aggressor having all kinds of military power, helicopters, bombs, tanks,
night vision, satellites etc.. would you go out in the open to face him???
even Americans don't do that. If they think that someone - the enemy- is
hiding in a certain building thay just level it with no further
excuses...and most of the time killing any unfortunate family which happend
to live there..and most of the time the "suspect" is not there..
When the american bombs just evaporated a whole block , because they had
info that Saddam was eating in a restaurant., resulting in killling dozens
of civilians, does that qualify for terrorism?
when the military investigation for the bombing - and killing of 2 media
personnel- of the Palestine hotel , blames no one for it, and still insists
that the action was justified.... , or the bombing of the Al Jazeera
offices....not to mention hundreds of other incidents- not going to other
attrocities , such as the Abu Graib and the recent cold blooded execution of
this injured Iraqi..
>>
>>>These terrorists are killing Iraqis at the rate of 25 for every American.
>>>The IRA were named as terrorist when they blew up Irish citizens, weren't
>>>they? Bader Meinhof were considered terrorist when they kidnapped and
>>>murdered Germans, weren't they? Timothy McVeigh was considered a
>>>terrorist, wasn't he?
>>
>>
>> Yes, and Saddam was a very close friend of the US, Osama was funded by
>> the CIA, Arafat was a terrorist for the US until he received the Nobel
>> Peace Prize and then was greeted by the US president as a head of State
>> .... and ... and....would you like me to go on and on ???
>>
> Hussein was NEVER a close friend of the US. We never sold him as much as a
> rifle. Yeah, we supported bin Laden while the Soviets were attacking
> Afghanistan. We also sent Stalin hundreds of millions of war aid during
> World War 2, so what? And, to the best of my memory, Arafat was never
> greeted as a head of state in this country by a Republican president.
>
He was indeed a very close friend .. being helped ouit in the open during
the Iraq- Iran war.. you cant' deny that... even the US press knows and
wrote about it
He was greeted in Camp David, when they signed the peace treaty with Israel,
with Carter ( if I remember correctly) as US president...look on thenet ,
you may find pictures. they DO exist, you know..
please enlighten me and the rest of the readers with the following :
the US was furious to capture Milocevic, because he was a criminal , to send
him to the war crimes tribunal so that justice would be served...so far so
good..
Why doesn't the US recognize the Tribunal's power over its citizens, then ?
you may not know, but the rest of the world does.... so that it's personnel
can go on and doing all kinds of crimes around the world and get away with
it.. if the were participants in the Tribunal, then all these people eg.
responsible for the Abu Graib scendal, would be in the Hague now.....
What about Guantanamo... is it or isn't it US soil ? how come certain laws
apply and others don't, what is it, selective ?
so if one goes and bombs Guantanamo, what connection would there be with the
US?
we can continue, if you CARE !!! if you don't , go on with your arrogant
life hiding somewhere where you think is safe now !
Gregorio Roper
> Gregorio Roper wrote:
>
> You need oodles of training to MAKE a bomb. There's a term used for
> untrained people making bombs, splattered.
Hell, in fact, you can pull every little bit of knowledge that you need
from the internet.
>> Forging documents is not a problem either. You can actually use your
>> real identity if you are planning a suicide mission. All you need to
>> do, is keep a clean record until the terrorist attack.
>> As for money, There are Al Qaeda sympathizers all over the world, in
>> addition terrorists, willing to contribute money to their cause. I
>> would assume that there are certain links to organized crime, too.
>>
> If you have links to organized crime you're making yourself vulnerable.
> Almost any persecutor would give a walk to an accused murderer to break
> a terrorist cell.
You are making yourself vulnerable to some extent, but that's the way it
is. Still, - http://www.csis.org/hill/ts001213cilluffo.html
>> Let us suppose, the terrorists are logically thinking men, why would
>> they concentrate their efforts on Iraq? As you said, there are a lot
>> of reasons, but shouldn't it be obvious that they cannot win against
>> the US army?
>> In my opinion, the answer is that they are not trying to defeat the US
>> troops, they are trying to convince more muslims to fight with them.
>> They are clearly trying to force an escalation by all means, and
>> Fallujah with all the bad press it brought for the U.S. was clearly a
>> success. I mean, just look at what Al Jazeera is reporting. There are
>> a lot of people who believe that stuff.
>>
> Yes it is obvious and it's also obvious that no matter how many the
> enlist to fight with them they still won't be able to defeat us, and
> they must know that, so we're back to square one, why are they doing it?
They will be able to defeat the U.S., not in a battle against the army,
but they can destroy every last bit of civilian infrastructure that the
U.S. try to build up. They can convince other Iraqis not to work with
the U.S. or they can kill them. That is the obvious purpose of killing
Iraqi police men. The message is "If you work with the U.S., we will
kill you."
mfg
gregorio