The Al Qaeda Exageration

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
The Al Qaeda Exaggeration

Interesting viewpoint on the real strength of Al Qaeda. What insurgents there are, come from US allies.
The Al Qaeda Exaggeration

By Larry Johnson on November 23, 2007 at 7:54 PM in Current Affairs

The foreign fighter and Iranian myths blew up in the Bush Administration’s face in a big way this week. Despite repeated declarations over the last year that the violence racking Iraq is the result of Al Qaeda operations and influence and Iranian meddling, the facts on the ground do not support these claims. The U.S. Army confirmed this week that the foreign fighters constitute a small fraction of the insurgent activity and that most of insurgent activity is the handiwork of Iraqi Sunnis. The New York Time’s Richard Oppel wrote:

The . . . insurgency in Iraq remains both overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni.
American officials now estimate that the flow of foreign fighters was 80 to 110 per month during the first half of this year and about 60 per month during the summer. The numbers fell sharply in October to no more than 40, partly as a result of the Sinjar raid, the American officials say.

Oppel’s article contains three critical facts:

Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials. . . .

In contrast to the comparatively small number of foreigners, more than 25,000 inmates are in American detention centers in Iraq. Of those, only about 290, or some 1.2 percent, are foreigners, military officials say.. . .

About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population. All of the foreign fighters listed on the materials found near Sinjar, excluding two from France, also came from countries that are predominantly Sunni.

For years the Bush Administration has insisted that there was a direct operational tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Once Saddam was no longer around, Bush and company continued to cite Al Qaeda as the culprit behind most of the murder and mayhem in Iraq. You know, fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.

And in September 2006 President Bush added the bogeyman of Iran to his litany of terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq (see Bush’s speech, September 6, 2006) . Just last July George Bush, during a speech at the National War College, mentioned al-Qaeda 27 times.:


McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay reports, “Bush called al-Qaeda in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that carried out the 9/11 attacks.”

I understand the politics of terrorism and the need to trot out Al Qaeda as the ultimate threat in order to rally public support. But, if we are honest with ourselves, it is a very anemic threat. Remember the Cold War? By God we knew how to scare the bejesus out of folks back when we faced the threat of International Communism. Those were the good old days of fear mongering. The “reds” were seeking world domination. They hated God. They didn’t believe in God. I guess you can’t hate what doesn’t exist.

Oh, did I mention nukes, naval armadas, nuclear subs, million man armies, long range bombers, and sleeper agents. Whoops. Forgot about the KGB, the GRU, and their varied success in convincing Americans to betray their country for the great good of helping the Commies take over the world.

Those were the good old days. Now? We have the Global Caliphate that the crafty old Al Qaeda is Allah bent on establishing. Global Islamic rule. Sound familiar? I like to think of it as Lenin on crack with a religious bent.

Violence in Iraq? Al Qaeda of course. Why should we let the fact that the so-called leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq last year–Abu Musab Al Zarqawi–was too extreme for even Bin Laden and his deputy, Zawahiri? We should not worry about truth when we are committed to a propaganda message whose central theme is feeding the American public a steady diet of fear.


Some in the press are complicit in this charade. Note a story in Reuter’s today hyping the Al Qaeda threat:

Three suspected al Qaeda militants, including two sisters, beheaded their uncle and his wife, forcing the couple’s children to watch, Iraqi police said on Friday.

The militants considered that school guard Youssef al-Hayali was an infidel because he did not pray and wore western-style trousers, they told police interrogators after being arrested in Diyala province northwest of Baghdad.

Let me see if I got this straight. Two nieces, who are apparently religious fanatics, murder their aunt and uncle. But they are Al Qaeda? Really? Did they have a membership card? A video of them swearying bayat to Bin Laden? No and no. It would appear that Al Qaeda now is a convenient shorthand for a muslim extremist.

Let’s just act like George Bush and label all violence as Al Qaeda. Let’s continue to remind folks that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11. Let’s just hype the **** out of Al Qaeda. Make them 10 feet tall, with a massive global network capable of maintaining sleeper cells intact in the United States, and just biding their time to launch a nuclear strike. Make sure we are so afraid that we will lose any ability to do critical thinking and will willingly surrender our civil liberties just to be safe from the threat of the Global Caliphate.

Or, here’s an alternative. Let’s recognize that the threat posed by Islamic extremists, while real and potentially lethal, is something we can contain without losing our minds, our lives, and our freedoms.
But to take that approach requires we rediscover reason and analysis. Oppel’s fine article is a step in that direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/world/middleeast/22fighters.html?hp
 
Werbung:
Thanks for reminding me why I cancelled my NY Times subscription a while back. It is truly amazing that such a well-known organization could just flat out lie.

For years the Bush Administration has insisted that there was a direct operational tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." -- President Bush

I understand the politics of terrorism and the need to trot out Al Qaeda as the ultimate threat in order to rally public support. But, if we are honest with ourselves, it is a very anemic threat.

May I direct you to the numerous examples of thwarted AQ terrorist plots posted in my most recent thread? Perhaps we should let a few be successful to remind some of the liberals exactly what we are fighting for. There are the families of 3,000 Americans who would disagree that AQ is an "anemic threat".

It sounds like Michael Moore repeatedly exclaiming "there is no terrorist threat!"

Or, here’s an alternative. Let’s recognize that the threat posed by Islamic extremists, while real and potentially lethal, is something we can contain without losing our minds, our lives, and our freedoms.

Are you willing to apply the same logic to healthcare, global warming, etc. Of course not. Of course not. We'd rather fight carbon emissions than Islamic fascists, right Popeye?

One last thing that I think I should add. The Iranians didn't just appear out of nowhere. There were hundreds of Iranians caught by SF in Afghanistan before the "official" war even started.
 
You hit that one on the head USMC. The sad thing is that there is a certain group of people who depend upon rags like the ny times for thier news and believe them without question.

We could only wish that if terrorists are going to target Americans, that it would be those who refuse to see them as a threat in spite of the overwhelming evidence.
 
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." -- President Bush
Now my Jarheaded buddy, in the name of full disclosure, there was a time when the Bush Administration was widely touting this, as I am sure you are aware.

When it comes to AQ, while they certainly are a threat to Americans, I think the scare tactics the current administration uses is a bit over the top. We need to always be wary of any terrorists AQ or another group or individual aside. That being said, I dont think we need to change our basic way of life, function of government as a result of thier actions or under fear of something happening.
 
Now my Jarheaded buddy, in the name of full disclosure, there was a time when the Bush Administration was widely touting this, as I am sure you are aware.

Could you provide some quotes from the bush administration? If they were widely touting such a thing, quotes shouldn't be hard to come by.

I recall the administration rightly saying that iraq supported terrorism, and that they had ties to al queda, but I don't recall them ever saying that iraq was involved in 9/11. I believe that was an invalid connection made and reported by the members of the press and gobbled up by a particular segment of the public who is willing to believe anything said about the administration so long as it is negative.
 
When it comes to AQ, while they certainly are a threat to Americans, I think the scare tactics the current administration uses is a bit over the top. We need to always be wary of any terrorists AQ or another group or individual aside. That being said, I dont think we need to change our basic way of life, function of government as a result of thier actions or under fear of something happening.

I hear this a lot and don't really understand it. We have traditionally always adapted to the current threat to best protect Americans -- WW2 being the most obvious example.
 
Could you provide some quotes from the bush administration? If they were widely touting such a thing, quotes shouldn't be hard to come by.

I recall the administration rightly saying that iraq supported terrorism, and that they had ties to al queda, but I don't recall them ever saying that iraq was involved in 9/11. I believe that was an invalid connection made and reported by the members of the press and gobbled up by a particular segment of the public who is willing to believe anything said about the administration so long as it is negative.

Bush letter to Congress (3-21-03) read the second paragraph, and you tell me what impression he was trying to give. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html
 
Nothing there suggesting that iraq was involved in 9/11. Instead of reading between the lines, you should simply stick to the words.

"Nothing was suggested"? Then why did almost 70% of the public, before the Iraqi invasion, think Saddam was involved? I'll tell you why, Bush administration officials insinuated that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Look at these remarks by Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press." In three appearances dating back to December 2001, Cheney said there is information suggesting that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague months before the attack, a story that the FBI, the CIA and the Czech government all said was fictional (Atta was in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting).

On another appearance, Tim Russert questioned him about the public's perception of a Saddam-al Qaeda link. Cheney's answer, "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." Russert asked directly if such a connection existed. Cheney said, "We don't know." Later, in the show Cheney called Iraq, "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault mow for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Wait a minute, I thought "the geographic base of the terrorists", was Afghanistan. Isn't that why we invaded?

Lies, insinuations, connections made with no supporting evidence, all meant to dupe the public into supporting the invasion. Count yourself among the duped.
 
The public is always willing to believe threats against the US. I truly think we are a cowardly people. The slightest threat, even a vague hint of one, and we want to kill every man, woman, and child in sight.

I realize that my words are perhaps offensive to many, but consider the reaction of our fearless leaders and the country about Afghanistan. We were going to bomb them back to the stone age. That means effectivelly killing every man, woman, and child.

We want to nuke Iran. And many think we should have nuked Iraq. Hey, there's still time. And the threat from the countries is minimal.
 
No, a truly cowardly people would want to appease and accomodate the enemy at the expense of our principles and way of life. Standing up and directly confronting the threat is not the least bit cowardly.
 
Thanks for reminding me why I cancelled my NY Times subscription a while back. It is truly amazing that such a well-known organization could just flat out lie.
-----------------
Why in the name of God would any sane person want to read that rag in the first place? It's just another of the Zionist-controlled scandal-sheets that are rotting the collective minds of America.
 
"Nothing was suggested"? Then why did almost 70% of the public, before the Iraqi invasion, think Saddam was involved? I'll tell you why, Bush administration officials insinuated that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
....Or, at the very-least, made ZERO-efforts to dispel the Public's-perception there was a link between Hussein & 9/11.
 
The public is always willing to believe threats against the US. I truly think we are a cowardly people.
Welllllllllllllll.....ya' gotta give the Bush-Admin credit for using tried-and-true methods. :rolleyes:

*

goering.jpg
 
Werbung:
Back
Top