A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

[Patroklos]

and I did not support letting AQ get away to Pakistan because we had to invade Iraq.

Do you think we would be any more likely to invade Western Pakistan that we are now without Iraq?

Pakistan would be the same as it is today Iraq or not. Our military presense in Afghanistan has no effect on Pakistani operations.

[Arrian]

Iran, the greatest threat to democracy since nazi germany

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

They tried it again, and so far it seems to be working, despite a few minor hiccups.

At best the will end up+1/-1, and Iraq will never be Sunni no matter what happens.

[Berzerker]

He said "First I want you to convert to Islam." I don't think he needs too much excuse to attack us. And our troops are out of SA, why hasn't AQ disappeared? Isn't that what they wanted?

I'm surrounded by people who want me to convert to Christianity, and our troops left Saudi Arabia after 9/11 for invasions and wars in other Muslim countries. You think that qualifies as a withdrawal from the Middle East?

If he wants to set up the government he would like in some backwater area then it isn't a problem, but again, he had that before september 11th, with ZERO US interference. He has it now, though not over all of Afghanistan anymore. It isn't what he wants.

AQ was not the govt and the Taliban did not have control all over Afghanistan. But the west was interfering before 9/11, that was our bargaining chip to get help from the Taliban. Yeah, AQ attacked us on 9/11 because we wont convert to Islam, not because we're occupying Muslim lands

It is all the response your absurd suggestion deserves.

A response is related to the topic, you didn't even address the issue with your time machine.

Just what do you think that means to them?

Is that your proof AQ will conquer Israel?

What is your point, that you supported "not letting AQ get away", but that isn't what happened. I myself would prefer that we finish the job and go into Pakistan rather then leave.

We aint gonna deal with AQ, they have safe harbor in Pakistan and we're stuck trying to keep the Taliban from regaining control of southern Afghanistan. Has that point sunk in yet?

I'll probably go through one more iteration of this, but I'm not laboring under any assumptions about changing your mind(or establishing the underlying facts for that matter).

It'll take more than your time machine to convince me Osama has been attacking us because we are free.

[Agathon]

The US has precious little options in the Middle East. It also has very little that it can do to the Iranians. About the only thing that can be done is airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Even then, all that will do is merely delay the Iranians and strengthen the current regime, whilst making the US even more unpopular among the rest of us.

In theory, the US could invade Iran. But that would cost a fortune and almost certainly require the reintroduction of the draft. Americans are simply not prepared to pay those costs, and a government that did so would be soundly beaten at the next election. If you think that the Vietnam protests were something, they are nothing compared to the civil unrest that would occur if the US tried to reinstitute the draft for a war in Iran.

[Berzerker]

Do you think we would be any more likely to invade Western Pakistan that we are now without Iraq?

Pakistan would be the same as it is today Iraq or not. Our military presense in Afghanistan has no effect on Pakistani operations.

Then smart people would have tried to prevent AQ from escaping to Pakistan, not turn over their capture to Afghan warlords while our troops are sent off to Iraq.

[Ramo]

AQ in Mesopotamia (a Jordanian - Zarqawi's operation) is seperate from OBL's org in the Pakistani NWFP/Afghanistan. It's a relatively small portion of the Sunni insurgency. There's about 720 foreign insurgents detained compared to about 19,000 total. Based on sheer numbers, as soon as we leave and the marriage of convenience is nullified, it's likely that the locals would swiftly kick 'em out (which we're currently helping them do to an extent in Anbar).

[Ramo]

It excludes the fact that Iran, the greatest threat to democracy since nazi germany, even exists.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos

At best the will end up+1/-1, and Iraq will never be Sunni no matter what happens.

I don't think you quite appreciate the risk. From the US point of view it is actually worse if Iraq becomes a Shia state, because it will have a natural ally in Iran, which will be the regional hegemon. Afghanistan is already lost, as nobody has ever managed to keep hold of that place for very long. Either way, US power will be discredited in the region and the power, prestige and influence of the Islamists will be increased, perhaps enough to force compromise or even a revolution in another Arab state.

They'll still sell you their oil (because they have no alternative), but they may well make you pay for it in Euros, which would be a calamity for the US, and one which the US could do little about.

In many ways Osama bin Laden is a great man. To be sure, he is somewhat of a nut, but that goes with the territory. He is very close to effecting a major loss of influence on the world's remaining superpower, and he has done this with a small amount of cash and a small organization that is bound to his will. In 200 years time, historians will marvel at how he managed to do so much with so little, but the answer is simple: he knew where and when to push.

Of course it isn't solely attributable to him. He is helped by the fact that modern Western states are no longer capable of producing leaders with the wherewithal to counter him.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm surrounded by people who want me to convert to Christianity, and our troops left Saudi Arabia after 9/11 for invasions and wars in other Muslim countries. You think that qualifies as a withdrawal from the Middle East?

I think it qualifies as being out of Saudi Arabia, and away from several of the holiest areas to Islam.

AQ was not the govt and the Taliban did not have control all over Afghanistan. But the west was interfering before 9/11, that was our bargaining chip to get help from the Taliban.

We both interfered with, and got help from the Taliban. It seems my recollection is a little different.

Yeah, AQ attacked us on 9/11 because we wont convert to Islam, not because we're occupying Muslim lands

Straight from the horse's mouth. I also think you and AQ have some different definitions of Muslim land.

A response is related to the topic, you didn't even address the issue with your time machine.

Yes I did, what is this "I would have prevented" nonsense.

Is that your proof AQ will conquer Israel?

Why do you think AQ will conquer Israel? Do you honestly believe though that they'd ever not just fall back on the Israel exists justification for attacking others all over the globe?

It'll take more than your time machine to convince me Osama has been attacking us because we are free.

I didn't say he attacked us because of our freedoms. And yea, I've already concluded that it would take more then your time machine to establish that to you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

Originally posted by Berzerker
I keep hearing that criticism of Bush and talk about withdrawal scenarios from Iraq reinvigorates or encourages Al Qaeda. Leaving aside how the Bushies will eventually announce their withdrawal plan from Iraq without encouraging Al Qaeda what does this say about Al Qaeda? Is that their goal? To get us to leave Iraq? Is that true for Afghanistan as well? If we leave the Middle East does our war on terror end or does Al Qaeda continue efforts to attack us here after we've gone?

"Islam requires the entire world." - Abu a'la al Maududi

We're the biggest impediment. No matter where we are. Are they going to start with Norway or Bhutan or Paraguay first?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course it isn't solely attributable to him. He is helped by the fact that modern Western states are no longer capable of producing leaders with the wherewithal to counter him.

Actually, it's more that the populace of modern Western states will not tolerate the type of leader, or the type of actions, necessary to counter him.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Agathon
Al Qaeda's goal is to bring Islamist governments to power in predominantly Sunni Arab states.

Remove the part about predominantly Sunni Arab states and you will be more accurate.

[Berzerker]

I think it qualifies as being out of Saudi Arabia, and away from several of the holiest areas to Islam.

"The Americans have put troops in Saudi Arabia, let us attack them. Oh, after years of war the Americans have moved their troops in Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore we should no longer attack them." Thats your argument? Wft are you thinking? They were fighting the Russians for going into Afghanistan, why would they ignore us going into Afghanistan and Iraq? What part of withdrawing from the Middle East confuses you?

We both interfered with, and got help from the Taliban. It seems my recollection is a little different.

You said the US didn't interfere, now you said the US did interfere - let me know when you settle on one recollection. And I said we did interfere in response to your claim that we didn't, now you want to throw in how they helped us too? Thats nice, but where did I deny this? In fact, we were negotiating with the Taliban to set up AQ's leadership before 9/11, the Bushies let that slip by too.

Straight from the horse's mouth. I also think you and AQ have some different definitions of Muslim land.

So quote him? In Osama's declaration of war, our troops in Saudi Arabia was at the top of the list. And you're still missing the point (that qualifies you as a Bush advisor), AQ has very little support for converting the world to Islam, but they do have support (and recruitment power) for driving the west out of Muslim countries. We're fueling that recruitment by staying, so what is the point of staying if we're just going to wave at AQ as it hides out in Pakistan? I'd rather leave the region completely and rely on policing and intel to nab these guys until they try to set up outside their sanctuary.

Yes I did, what is this "I would have prevented" nonsense.

BS, you dodged what I said. And its real simple - if we didn't go in and remove Saddam from Kuwait, 9/11 would not have happened. If we did go in to remove Saddam from Kuwait and left after achieving that goal, 9/11 would not have happened. Its called cause and effect and it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. These guys in Afghanistan had just spent years fighting to expel the Russians from Afghanistan and after they won, we went in and set up shop in Saudi Arabia and they started attacking us. I guess converting the Russians to Islam could wait

Why do you think AQ will conquer Israel?

I dont, you're the one who said they would.

Do you honestly believe though that they'd ever not just fall back on the Israel exists justification for attacking others all over the globe?

I dont know, I doubt they really care about Israel judging by their actions. They seem intent on expelling the west from Muslim countries. But if they did take that course, how is that relevant to the bungled policies we're following?

I didn't say he attacked us because of our freedoms. And yea, I've already concluded that it would take more then your time machine to establish that to you.

You said they're attacking us because we aren't Muslims, thats because we are free to choose our religions. But you dont need a time machine, try some logic.

[Berzerker]

"Islam requires the entire world." - Abu a'la al Maududi

We're the biggest impediment. No matter where we are. Are they going to start with Norway or Bhutan or Paraguay first?

Yeah yeah, how is that any different than Christians who want the world for Jesus? Some guy says the world must follow his religion and that translates into Muslims want to conquer the world? Do you really think AQ recruitment is greater for that cause than getting us to leave the Middle East?