Iraq terrorist calls scientists to jihad

[Elok]

Originally posted by PLATO
If the US had not entered Iraq, are you suggesting that AQ's army would be peacefully sitting around sipping tea?

No, but AQ's army would probably be lot weaker if we'd stuck to attacking them as opposed to creating a massive chaotic void for them to hide in/recruit from (where there used to be a barbaric dictator...who was their enemy too).

I say that this is a further justification for invading Iraq! Gathering all these terrorist in one place where the power of the US military can be brought to bear is a good thing imho.

Is there anyonw who would rather the terrorist be operating in a different country? Perhaps your own country? Not me! Get 'em all into Iraq and kill them.

That's rather difficult to do. There are civilians in the way, you see. Lots of civilians. Should we behave like absolute monsters and kill the innocent along with the guilty (by nuking the place, for example), the rest of the Arab world will be quite justifiably outraged, leading to LOTS of new terrorist attacks.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Arrian


Strawman alert! Code Red! Code Red!

For the last fugging time, Sloww. There weren't a bunch of terrorists (Al Qaida or otherwise) in Iraq until we invaded the place and took out Saddam (Saddam was, of course, paying money to Palestinian suicide bomber's families and was himself a rat bastard, but that's another matter). There most certainly are terrorists, A-Q included, in Iraq NOW. Excellent work by the Lord Protector Bush!

-Arrian

That's your opinion; but the point is, we had the right and obligation to initially go there and secure Hussein, due to his breaking the Cease FIre as written under 1441.
For some reason, Al Qaida didn't like that. I know, they had no vested interest in Iraq, per you; but I find the coincidence amazing.

[Elok]

Hm. Sloww, how do you know AQ didn't like us doing that? Because they said so? They could hardly admit to being overjoyed by our bombing tons of their fellow Muslims, even if it did open up a big pool to recruit from...

[SlowwHand]

Did you read, or are you agreeing with Arrian because you find it fashionable?

Iran has no terrorists either. Nor does Syria.
Yep. It's us. They didn't kill their own before we got there.

We should leave, that's true. They can kill each other without us.

[SlowwHand]

Here. See? If we would just leave, they'd manage to kill each other off before the year was out.

40 bodies found in Iraq; 21 others dead

1 hour, 45 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of 40 men who been tortured were found in the capital in a span of 24 hours, police said Thursday. Bombings and shootings killed at least 21 people in and around Baghdad, including five people who died from a car-bomb explosion near a restaurant.

Thirty-four people were wounded in the bombing. Many of them had serious burns, and some were not expected to survive, police Lt. Ali Mohsen said at the Kindi Hospital.

Although the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan is under way, some Iraqis — including Christians — are not abstaining from eating meals during daytime hours.

Two Iraqi soldiers were killed and 10 more injured when a suicide car bomb slammed into a checkpoint in northeast Baghdad, police said. The attack came in the Shaab neighborhood, one that just been cleared by U.S. and Iraqi troops as part of a security drive in the capital.

The bodies of 40 men, more apparent victims of sectarian death squads, have been found dumped in eastern and western Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said. All showed signs of torture, had been shot, and had their hands and feet bound, police Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said.

Gunmen killed seven people, including five policemen and a woman, in different locations in the province of Diyala just north of Baghdad, police said. Six militants were killed in a shootout between Iraqi soldiers and a truckload of gunmen southwest of the capital, officials said.

Iraq's government warned residents that it will soon restrict vehicle access into the capital as part of a security crackdown targeting militants and death squads.

The violence also came amid reports from a number of senior coalition military officials that a large and powerful militia run by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has been breaking apart into freelance death squads and gangs — some of which are being influenced by
Iran.

Al-Sadr's Mahdi army is one of the largest and most powerful militias in Iraq, along with the Badr Brigades, which were once the military wing of Iraq's largest Shiite political group — the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

"There are fractures politically inside Sadr's movement, many of whom don't find him to be sufficiently radical now that he has taken a political course of action," said a senior coalition intelligence official who spoke to reporters in Baghdad on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak publicly on intelligence issues.

The official added that "there have been elements. I can think of about at least six major players who have left his organization because he has been perhaps too accommodating to the coalition."

On Sept. 22, al-Sadr urged his followers not use force against U.S. troops, saying "I want a peaceful war against them and not to shed a drop of blood.

Al-Sadr's ability to control his militia is important both to the U.S. military and an Iraqi government seeking to control and disarm militias and death squads blamed for thousands of sectarian killings in recent months.

Iran has also sought to influence rogue or splinter elements that have broken away from the Mahdi army while it is still able to, the senior intelligence official said.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Elok


No, but AQ's army would probably be lot weaker if we'd stuck to attacking them as opposed to creating a massive chaotic void for them to hide in/recruit from (where there used to be a barbaric dictator...who was their enemy too).

4000 dead tends to weaken terrorist groups as well. In any event, the new recruits will not have the benefit of years of training in the state sponsored camps of Afghanistan. In fact, it would be hard to imagine any type of real training program as they are obviously looking for bodies to through into a struggle they are getting severly bloodied in.

That's rather difficult to do. There are civilians in the way, you see. Lots of civilians. Should we behave like absolute monsters and kill the innocent along with the guilty (by nuking the place, for example), the rest of the Arab world will be quite justifiably outraged, leading to LOTS of new terrorist attacks.

Who said anything about nuking them? Oh yeah! It is you! Anyway, I believe that the military is doing the best it can to preserve civilian life. Yes there are casualties and that is always bad, but what standing do civilians have with AQ? Who would this evil army be attacking if it wasn't engaged in Iraq? Civilian targets would be my bet and I think 9/11 bears that point of view out quite well.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Elok
Hm. Sloww, how do you know AQ didn't like us doing that? Because they said so? They could hardly admit to being overjoyed by our bombing tons of their fellow Muslims, even if it did open up a big pool to recruit from...

If you know much about AQ, then you know they generally don't give a crap about their fellow muslim. Who do you think is killing the majority of the muslim civilians in Iraq right now? Yep...it would be good ole AQ.

[SlowwHand]

Al Qaida (or whatever gang a terrorist chooses to join) doesn't give a royal rat's ass about anyone.
Not Muslim's or other radical Muslim's for that matter.

They're demented. It looks to me like they would have a hard time replenishing their stock of demented people.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


That's your opinion; but the point is, we had the right and obligation to initially go there and secure Hussein, due to his breaking the Cease FIre as written under 1441.
For some reason, Al Qaida didn't like that. I know, they had no vested interest in Iraq, per you; but I find the coincidence amazing.

Oh my. You ARE.

Let's leave aside whether or not the invasion was justified. Lots of things can be justified, Sloww. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Saddam was many things. What he wasn't was a friend to A-Q. He paid a certain amount of self-serving lipservice to Palestinians fighting Israelis and gave some cash to families of suicide bombers, which is bad but is not the same thing as hosting A-Q camps. Essentially Iraq pre-invasion =! Afganistan.

Of course AQ has an interest in Iraq. AQ and those like them want hardcore Islamist governments across that region, which includes Iraq. Saddam wasn't their type, so they shed no tears for him. They have taken advantage of the power vaccum we created (combo of removing nasty dictator and godawful occupation planning and execution).

A-Q's activity in Iraq is a direct result of our invasion.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

Originally posted by PLATO
4000 dead tends to weaken terrorist groups as well. In any event, the new recruits will not have the benefit of years of training in the state sponsored camps of Afghanistan. In fact, it would be hard to imagine any type of real training program as they are obviously looking for bodies to through into a struggle they are getting severly bloodied in.

Yeah, they'll just have all the experience that fighting a first world army brings. And they can always send moles into the Iraqi Army to benefit from American efforts to train that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AQ sure does love how the US gave them plenty of recruitment boosts by invading a country just because we felt like it (since most of the stated reasons have been shown false).

And Sloww, as for violating a cease fire... that was with the United Nations and as such only the UN should be able to enforce a breach of the treaty. If North Korea violates the cease fire with South Korea, should Iran be able to enforce it and invade North Korea?

[Arrian]

I think you give too little credit to our enemies, and too much to humanity in general. I don't see AQ having recruiting problems any time soon. There are plenty of religious loonies for them to brainwash, and they certainly have a plan. It may be demented, but I don't think they're stupid.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Did the U.N. make an attempt to dissuade this? No, because they knew full well the cease fire was broken.
It's not just U.S. and Brit forces in on this. It's U.N. members. Well, not France.

[Elok]

You appear to have some sort of fundamental problem grasping the difference between the "war on terror" and an actual, conventional war. When we pull out of Iraq and it all falls down, there will be mass slaughter, and plenty of innocent people who have no means of escape will die. That, by itself, is horrible.

If, however, you insist on looking at things from a purely jingoistic perspective, those people are going to leave behind relatives. Relatives who remember who started the invasion that left their parents/siblings/children/spouses dead. When the smoke clears and they've become sick of killing each other, there's going to be a whole group of people who would otherwise be basically neutral but now hate the U.S. with a burning passion. It doesn't matter if we kill ten terrorists today if in doing so we inspire forty civilians to join their cause tomorrow.

I assumed by "full military force" you meant something that could feasibly kill all of the terrorists where they stand. Nukes would do that, as would a massive conventional bombing campaign, I imagine. Those would eliminate all the civilians along with the terrorists. If by "full military force" you meant something that would kill only, or even mostly, the terrorists, I invite you to suggest how.

[Arrian]

[stunned silence]