Proof we are winning the war on terror

[Dr Strangelove]

They've been killing their own folks for a long time now - in Tanzania, in Egypt, and in Afghanistan. Some of their attacks on non-muslims have raised moral doubts among fellow muslims, Breslan for instance. I wonder how they will feel when we finally leave Iraq and a full scale civil war breaks out? The worst case would that a civil war in Iraq will suck in Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and who knows who else.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

There seems to have been more terrorist attacks this year than last, which is curious if you are "winning".

During the Civil War, the Union lost a number of crucial battles and Lincoln became despondent and full of despair at one point about the losses.

What happened? The Union trudged through the worst days, and after suffering huge losses, won decisive victories in other battles that turned the war around.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Az
Hardly so. There are plenty of non-angry terrorists. Many, the vast majority of terrorists see terror as another frontier in the battlefield, in which they're willing soldiers. anger is only one of a host of reasons that can motivate such people.

The problem here is you are attacking a symptom, not the cause(s). The cause(s) could be social, economical, religious, etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
What happened? The Union trudged through the worst days, and after suffering huge losses, won decisive victories in other battles that turned the war around.

You are conflating a terrorist organisation with a regular army.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You are conflating a terrorist organisation with a regular army.

My example is still legitimate -- Asher's BASIC point is that because one side is suffering huge losses, that we can confidently project that this side will lose the war.

The example I used with the Union during the Civil War disproves such a simplistic presumption.

[Drake Tungsten]

Michael Yon has another dispatch up, which is interesting as always.

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/10/battle-for-mosul-iv.html

We really do seem to be defeating the insurgency, in Mosul at the very least.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/050914a.htm

Also, Bush finally came out and said that we are fighting a war against Islamic radicalism, not generalized "terror".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html

About ****ing time...

[Pekka]

Drake, wanna bet this is completely reversed in less than 2 weeks?

Not that I don't hope it would be true.

If Bush would say 'we are all humans and we need to do tthe right thing, plus ice cream is good', would you already drop on your knees?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by GePap
Interesting letter. MOre interesting is what it signifies. The folks in Afghanistan are worried, so they write the folks in Iraq..as if, the folks in Iraq are now the lead. They don't seem to be complaining about money, nor do they talk about being close to defeat.

So imagine if there was no al-Zarqawi to write to, no one with a large network of insurgents on the field right now... then we would trully be ahead.

So Bush is right, Iraq is the central front. Of course, had he not created that front at all, we might be done with the "war" against AQ already.

Yup, those genius neo-cons.

YEP

If we had never invaded Iraq, the "War on Terrorism" would have ben won in my opinion.

Some will argue that it is a neverending war, because terrorism is an idea that can't stopped, and especially through the military.

However, my "War on Terror" would have been called, "War to Eliminate Al Queda," where the objective would have been to destroy the network, much in the same way the Feds used to break down roaming Midwest crime gangs and big city based Italian mafias back in the 1930s.

I think the mafia is a good parallel, while you can't stomp out organized crime completely, you can castrate the groups which are strangling entire cities, and keep them in check when they get out of line.

Break down the network and put the leader (Bin Laden) behind bars, and secure Afghanistan into a stable and free country.

All of that would be well underway into a big success if it weren't for this ****ing dumbass one of the worst strategic and tactical mistakes in the history of this countr -- Iraq.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Pekka
would you already drop on your knees?

He's already on his knees.

[Pekka]

this is what I mean with low expectations. If you appear to be a person who makes mistakes, says weird things, then when you say the obvious right thing, suddenly it's horraah and 'i knew he'd come around! YEA YEA YEA!'... I mean what does that even mean?

It's the other way with other people. Like Kerry, if he once said something, he's accountable for ti for the rest of his life and his characted can be damaged. But if you say one thing that's obvious, such as ice cream is good, then you suddenly were right all along and are people's champ??

No no no.. it's the record in the long race. Hey, I'm not beating his record, I'm saying, what's with all the man love if he says something obvious? Is that how much you expect of him? Don't you expect more?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Michael Yon has another dispatch up, which is interesting as always.

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/10/battle-for-mosul-iv.html

We really do seem to be defeating the insurgency, in Mosul at the very least.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/050914a.htm

Also, Bush finally came out and said that we are fighting a war against Islamic radicalism, not generalized "terror".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html

About ****ing time...

The 25th is back in Iraq? They were there a year ago and now they're back. Those guys just can't catch a break.

BTW they've taken Mosul four times now and each time they declare they're winning yet 3 months later there they are retaking the same town. These guys just run away when we mass then come back as soon as we're gone. That's the way unconventual wars work.

Lastly "war on terror" is likely better then "war on Islamic radicalism" because most people in the muslim world already view it as a war on Islam so including the word Islam just reinforces that thinking. "War on Radicalism" might be a better choice or even Cheney's "global struggle against extremism".

[Zero]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The 25th is back in Iraq? They were there a year ago and now they're back. Those guys just can't catch a break.

well then theyre lucky. some units dont even get year on/off rotation these days.

[OzzyKP]

I find it interesting with news like this to compare American sources to Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera's article seems to be fairly balanced compared to CNN, except for the headline which takes a totally opposite direction:

'Al-Zawahiri' wants civilians spared

The letter says al-Qaida's No 2 is running low on funds

The US military says it has intercepted a purported letter from al-Qaida's number two to its top operative in Iraq, which reveals concern over the impact on Arab opinion of beheadings and videotaped executions.

The letter, which the US says is from Ayman al-Zawahiri - reportedly Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant - to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's top leader in Iraq, also complained about communications, unity of command and funding problems to the extent that he asked al-Zarqawi for money, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said on Friday.

Al-Zawahiri "says they should avoid tactics such as bombing mosques and slaughtering hostages in order to not alienate the masses", Whitman said.

But an internet posting of an audio recording attributed to al-Zarqawi has him saying that targeting "infidels", regardless of whether they are civilians or soldiers, was legitimate.

The US has not released a copy of the al-Zawahiri letter, and officials declined to quote it verbatim apparently because of the difficulty of translating the Arabic version into English.

Its existence was disclosed to certain US news organisations on Thursday after President George Bush gave a major speech aimed at shoring up eroding US support for the war against al-Qaida.

Iraq key

Whitman said the letter laid out in a blunt manner al-Qaida's broader strategy of driving US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic state across the Muslim world and ultimately destroying Israel.

"It also demonstrates that among the terrorist leaders there are differences of opinion concerning the terrorist tactics, but it also shows unity in terms of their overall objectives"

"What this letter demonstrates is that they also know the importance of Iraq," he said. "They understand how important Iraq is to their effort, as being central to their efforts right now, to their strategy and to their long-term plans."

The 6000-word letter was dated in July and obtained sometime after that, apparently by the US military.

It was unclear whether it was intercepted electronically or captured in a raid. But it had been received by al-Zarqawi, a defence official said.

"It's believed to be authentic," Whitman added.

As described by US officials, the al-Zawahiri letter buttresses Bush's view that the United States faces a long war against a determined enemy, and that Iraq is now at the centre of that struggle.

Differences of opinion

Whitman said the letter demonstrated that the Islamic extremists "have the overall goal of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, establishment of an Islamic state centred on Iraq and its neighbouring nations and eventually focused on Israel".

The letter purportedly hits out at
the practice of killing hostages

"It also demonstrates that among the terrorist leaders there are differences of opinion concerning the terrorist tactics, but it also shows unity in terms of their overall objectives," he said.

The letter also noted that the majority of the battle in Iraq was conducted through the media and that al-Zarqawi should conduct his actions outside the view of the Western media.

The impression left was that "the sensationalised killings that
alienate the masses that are covered by the Western press are harmful to what they are trying to do", Whitman said.

Al-Zarqawi: Infidels fair game

But in an audiotape broadcast on the internet early on Saturday, al-Zarqawi purportedly says Islam permits the killing of "infidel" civilians.

"In Islam, making the difference is not based on civilians and military, but on the basis of Muslims and infidels," said the voice attributed to the fugitive leader who has a $25-million price on his head.

"The Muslim's blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or
place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorised if he is not trustworthy," said the tape, whose veracity, as with most internet postings, could not be determined.

Al-Zarqawi's al-Qaida in the Land of Two Rivers has claimed, often in internet statements, responsibility for some of the most gruesome attacks in Iraq, including the beheadings of foreign hostages and Iraqis.

Al-Zawahiri's letter also said they had lost key leaders, that they had, to a large degree, resigned themselves to defeat in Afghanistan and that their lines of communication and sources of funding had been "severely disrupted", he said.

Al-Zawahiri also purportedly tells al-Zarqawi that, because of the disruptions, "they don't know what's going on so much, and that they have this lack of support, suggesting that perhaps Zarqawi can help Zawahiri with money", Whitman said.

"Zawahiri, again talking to Zarqawi, says there appears to be a lack of unity of effort, and perhaps even a unity of command," the spokesman added.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31E6BF7F-D644-45EA-9505-2D70E3FB1E7E.htm

[Dinner]

All these FFZers here who never stop by at poly. What did you guys link this thread over there? I hope you wouldn't be that childish.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Washington Bureau

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11407689.htm

The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

That's a tried and true Washington tactic; if the data shows you are wrong then you hide the data. Bush has done similiar things with global warming data.