Who exactly is fighting the War on Terror?

[Dinner]

Iran just captured two more Al Qaeda suspects trying to travel from Pakistan to Iraq. Iran has a history of doing so.

By contrast, US ally Pakistan's intelligence agency has deep ties to al-Qaeda. US ally Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of al-Qaeda's ideology, which is still the main ideology of that state, and elites in that country have been found giving money to al-Qaeda via "charities."

After 9/11, Iran offered to cooperate with the US in bringing down al-Qaeda (see discussion in article above). Dick Cheney quashed it, started planning the Iraq War, with eventual sights on Iran. Part of the deal breaker was giving up the MEK, terrorists (by State Department definition) who are allied with the American neocons against Iran.

This may make sense if you are trying to dominate the region. It may make sense if you are trying to take out potential enemies of Israel. And it may make sense if you want to sell lots of hardware and services in full-scale wars, and not the small-scale shadow wars against terrorists.

It doesn't make much sense if you actually want to go after al-Qaeda. If the war on terror was our top priority then why wouldn't the Bush Administration make a deal to get five of Al Qaeda's most senior people? If terrorism is so unacceptable then why wouldn't the Bush Administration give up support for an anti-Iranian terrorist group which even the State Department listed as a terrorist organization?

Bush says terrorism is unacceptable but sponsors a terrorist group? Bush says Al Qaeda is public enemy number one but passes up a chance to get five senior Al Qaeda people? This is the worst administration ever.

[Drake Tungsten]

So Iran has gathered up a bunch of Al-Qaeda bigwigs and is holding them under house arrest so they can potentially use them as a bargaining chip with us at a later date. That's "fighting the War on Terror"? I guess we should thank them for funding Hezbollah and Hamas too...

[Dinner]

I imagine that is part of Iran's motivation and Iran does indeed fund Shi'a terrorist organizations. That said, how can the US say all terrorism is bad while continuing to fund and support a known terrorist group? That causes a massive loss of legitamacy because we can't chastize others for funding terror when we ourselves are funding terror. That's just a terrible screw up.

Either Al Qaeda is public enemy number one as Bush continually keeps saying or they are not. If Al Qaeda is our highest priority then we should pull out all the stops and even, in Churchhill's words, shake hands with the devil in order to stop them. The Bush administration hasn't acted like Al Qaeda is that important to them though and instead have passed up on great chance to capture senior members simply because they refuse to talk with Iran. We can't reach any sort of agreement with Iran if the administration continues to act like a 6 year old on a playground who refuses to talk to people.

[Drake Tungsten]

You want to cut a deal with the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism in order to get a few Al Qaeda leaders because "Al Qaeda is public enemy number one"? Christ, and people say Bush lacks nuance...

[DRoseDARs]

Drake, no one has ever said Bush lacks nuance. Typically, it's a brain they say he's missing...

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, no one has ever said Bush lacks nuance.

What planet are you on?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You want to cut a deal with the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism in order to get a few Al Qaeda leaders because "Al Qaeda is public enemy number one"?

It all depends on the nature and conditions of the deal. The point is the Bush administration arrogantly refused to even talk about it when the Iranians approached them in 2002 and continue to do so to this vary day.

Talking doesn't mean total surrender. In fact talking is how you begin to find common ground.

[Sandman]

The MEK are quasi-Marxists. It'd be a laugh if they established a communist state in Iran with American help. Strangely familar, too...

world's foremost state supporter of terrorism

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with this?

[Dinner]

Notice how Drake keeps dancing around the fact that the Bush administration is now sponsoring a terrorist group?

[Pekka]

Well, this is going in circles if you say, yes, Iran isn't fighting terorrism and when they do get few of them, it's 'just gaining a barganing chip', so no matter what they'd do, it's a show of hostility.

THat is, you got yourself an enemy. Now, sort it out.

It might take another decade for the rest of the people to realize what **** up rhetorics has been used, by effectively polarizing everything into black and white. Yes. Not a good idea. Then you are facing situations like these, and there's no way out of it.

About terrorism though, I wonder why terrorists are always Christian or Muslim.. it's like.. where's the others? Lots of white people blowing stuff up, shooting people, IRA, lonely desperados... all kinds of folks in Europe. Then, jihad this and jihad that.

Why aren't others joining?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake, no one has ever said Bush lacks nuance.

What planet are you on?

Apparently not the one where you quote in-context.

Lacking nuance would be the best-case scenario to explain G.W.B. Sadly, it's far worse...

[Darius871]

Re: Who exactly is fighting the War on Terror?

Originally posted by Oerdin
After 9/11, Iran offered to cooperate with the US in bringing down al-Qaeda (see discussion in article above). Dick Cheney quashed it, started planning the Iraq War, with eventual sights on Iran. Part of the deal breaker was giving up the MEK, terrorists (by State Department definition) who are allied with the American neocons against Iran.

My memory's a little fuzzy on this so I could be wrong, but wasn't there already a thread on the above-quoted part, and in said thread wasn't belated news of this "deal" attributed to one questionable source who was corroborated by neither DC nor Tehran?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Apparently not the one where you quote in-context.

Lacking nuance would be the best-case scenario to explain G.W.B. Sadly, it's far worse...

I think right now I am buying into the theory that something happened to him which caused a loss of fuction...

JM

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Notice how Drake keeps dancing around the fact that the Bush administration is now sponsoring a terrorist group?

So did Clinton. So did Reagan. Business as usual, but with more hypocrisy than usual.

[chequita guevara]

According to a report I heard the other day, Iran offered to recognize Israel in 2003 if the U.S. would open negotiations with them. We of course, let this slip through our fingers.


edit: 2003, not 2002