U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt [Archive]

Barringtonia

12-07-2007, 07:25

I don't necessarily agree with the title: "World Terrorism Has Increased Sevenfold Since U.S. Invasion of Iraq"

If you look at the graph on that website (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html), if you exclude the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, "world" terrorism levels are about the same as they were before the invasion.

I don't think the world is less of a safe place in terms of terrorism - at least not OUR world. Sitting here in the West, I think we're just as safe as we were before the U.S. invaded Iraq. The same people hate us, maybe a bigger portion. Of course the amount of attacks have increased - there's a war going on in the Middle East that has gotten more and more complicated with essentially a civil war going on in Iraq.

Fear has skyrocketed, but I don't think the imminent risk of attack is as bad as the media lets on.

I sort of agree with this although it does say that if you exclude Iraq and Afghanistan, the rates have still risen by 35%

Even with that, I'd like to know what they consider as terrorist attacks as I suspect I would have a lot of problems with their definitions.

I would also suspect a large part come from attacks on Israel or events from that region but overall I feel just as safe as I did before 9/11, before Iraq and ever since I was born I suppose.

Having said that, I can easily believe that there are more recruits to the cause of disrupting the status quo, wherever that may be. I hesitate to use the words Al Qaeda or even terrorism because I think the definitions are way too fuzzy to isolate.

CanuckHeaven

12-07-2007, 07:26

So? I'm only talking about bombing the Al-Queda.
Good luck Sherlock.

Kyronea

12-07-2007, 07:35

Good luck Sherlock.

Is he serious about trying to bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan against the will of the Pakistanis? Bombing an ally is a really bad idea.

What would happen anyway? Would the rest of NATO turn on the U.S.? Would they all actually threaten military force against the U.S.? And what would the Pakistani response be? They have nuclear weaponry but no delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S. Would they react against India instead as a proxy?

Xorthea

12-07-2007, 07:40

What would happen anyway? Would the rest of NATO turn on the U.S.? Would they all actually threaten military force against the U.S.? And what would the Pakistani response be? They have nuclear weaponry but no delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S. Would they react against India instead as a proxy?

I think it would be so unimaginably stupid that no one would be quite sure how to react.

Lacadaemon

12-07-2007, 07:40

What would happen anyway? Would the rest of NATO turn on the U.S.? Would they all actually threaten military force against the U.S.? And what would the Pakistani response be? They have nuclear weaponry but no delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S. Would they react against India instead as a proxy?

I'm assuming NATO would go along with it. They had no problem with bombing Serbia.

Kyronea

12-07-2007, 07:45

I think it would be so unimaginably stupid that no one would be quite sure how to react.
Sort of an international version of...of...

Damn it! Someone give me a reference!

I'm assuming NATO would go along with it. They had no problem with bombing Serbia.

Oh, that's right, they did go right along with that.

...

What about Russia or China? How close are they to Pakistan?

Lacadaemon

12-07-2007, 07:54

What about Russia or China? How close are they to Pakistan?

It's a potential stumbling block. But I'm sure NATO could have one of those conference thingies, where the great powers carve up the troublesome places into different spheres and any potential ruffled feathers get smoothed.

We could stop complaining about Tibet and stuff.

CanuckHeaven

12-07-2007, 07:56

I'm assuming NATO would go along with it. They had no problem with bombing Serbia.
You are dreaming in technocolour. The circumstances between Serbia and Pakistan are light years apart.

Lacadaemon

12-07-2007, 07:59

You are dreaming in technocolour. The circumstances between Serbia and Pakistan are light years apart.

Well, Serbia wasn't a really a threat to anyone, so the two cases aren't identical.

Barringtonia

12-07-2007, 08:01

Is he serious about trying to bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan against the will of the Pakistanis? Bombing an ally is a really bad idea.

What would happen anyway? Would the rest of NATO turn on the U.S.? Would they all actually threaten military force against the U.S.? And what would the Pakistani response be? They have nuclear weaponry but no delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S. Would they react against India instead as a proxy?

I don't think the problem is the response by NATO or the state of Pakistan - I think the problem with trying to bomb Al Qaeda within Pakistan is that it would destabilise Pakistan by providing extra ammunition for extremist forces in Pakistan against Musharref. Not that he's the best among men but at least the US has a dialogue with him.

The second problem is accurately locating Al Qaeda operatives, where would you bomb? Quetta? Peshawar?

I'm not too sure Musharref is a great fan of Al Qaeda or Taliban right now, and by extension nor is the state of Pakistan, regardless of individual citizen opinion. He can't be seen to openly be against them nor for them - personally I can't see him lasting another 5 years, if not less.

Arab Maghreb Union

12-07-2007, 08:02

What about Russia or China? How close are they to Pakistan?

China borders it.

Barringtonia

12-07-2007, 08:05

Well, Serbia wasn't a really a threat to anyone, so the two cases aren't identical.

It was a threat and the effects of that threat are practically a direct cause leading to 9/11. Not only did the US move mujahadeen from Afghanistan to Serbia, helping to form early operations and channels into Europe, but the outcry of Muslims due to the perceived lack of Western resolve over the atrocities proved a huge catalyst of support for Islamism.

It's no coincidence that many Al Qaeda operatives studied in Europe, or operated out of Europe - if you were in University campuses in the mid-90's in the UK, you would have seen the growth of Islamism in front of your eyes, directly fueled by Serbia.

Not a threat in the traditional sense but they are very similar in terms of ethnic conflict overspilling into the wider world.

CoallitionOfTheWilling

12-07-2007, 08:15

If only Musharref would allow us to conduct invasions on the Afghan/Pakistan border, and get the vast amounts of Al-Qaida members and leadership there.

Lacadaemon

12-07-2007, 08:24

It was a threat and the effects of that threat are practically a direct cause leading to 9/11. Not only did the US move mujahadeen from Afghanistan to Serbia, helping to form early operations and channels into Europe, but the outcry of Muslims due to the perceived lack of Western resolve over the atrocities proved a huge catalyst of support for Islamism.

It's no coincidence that many Al Qaeda operatives studied in Europe, or operated out of Europe - if you were in University campuses in the mid-90's in the UK, you would have seen the growth of Islamism in front of your eyes, directly fueled by Serbia.

Not a threat in the traditional sense but they are very similar in terms of ethnic conflict overspilling into the wider world.

I don't believe that was a driving force at all. And there really is no way that Kosovo situation can be called a threat to wider western interests. Slobodan Milošević had the matter well in hand apparently, and nicely contained within his own borders.

True, had the KLA started bombing attacks in European cities then a crack down would have been in order. (On the KLA). But they didn't.

As to lack of western resolve. Shitty things were happening to Muslims all over the world in the 90s.

AnarchyeL

12-07-2007, 08:25

If you look at the graph on that website (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html), if you exclude the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, "world" terrorism levels are about the same as they were before the invasion.Maybe if you actually tried reading the source:But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities.

Barringtonia

12-07-2007, 08:43

I don't believe that was a driving force at all. And there really is no way that Kosovo situation can be called a threat to wider western interests. Slobodan Milošević had the matter well in hand apparently, and nicely contained within his own borders.

True, had the KLA started bombing attacks in European cities then a crack down would have been in order. (On the KLA). But they didn't.

As to lack of western resolve. Shitty things were happening to Muslims all over the world in the 90s.

Read this (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html)

Then this (http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Bringing%20it%20Home%20-%20web.pdf), which is very long but from which comes:

Finally, the report’s section on ‘The Bosnian Connection’ notes that “during our research, a number of imams from mosques and universities reported seeing signs of radicalisation emerging from the early 1990s onwards, which could be linked to the activity in Bosnia….at the time, the intelligence agencies failed to see the significance of these events”. This is disingenous to say the least. Former minister Michael Meacher himself noted , in his article ‘Britain now faces its own blowback’ (The Guardian, 10th September 2005) that “less well known is evidence of the British government's relationship with a wider Islamist terrorist network . During an interview on Fox TV this summer, the former US federal prosecutor John Loftus reported that British intelligence had used the al-Muhajiroun group in London to recruit Islamist militants with British passports for the war against the Serbs in Kosovo. Since July Scotland Yard has been interested in an alleged member of al-Muhajiroun, Haroon Rashid Aswat, who some sources have suggested could have been behind the London bombings”. It is now known that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith established the Bosnia Defence Fund that partly supported Al Qaeeda units in Bosnia.

...as well as:

The origins of al Qaida can be traced as far back as the Afghan–Soviet war, but the genesis of al Qaida in Europe is most directly linked to the conflict in Bosnia in the early 1990s. Bosnia was a stepping stone
towards western Europe for Osama bin Laden; it offered a place to train, coalesce into cells and seek shelter from prosecution by foreign law enforcement, in proximity of London, Riyadh and Cairo. It stirred the imagination of a new generation of young Muslims across Europe as it became part legend, part sob-story: a propaganda tale as well as an open wound demanding vengeance. It attracted a number of European Muslims who later returned home converted to the cause,with rudimentary training in warfare and contacts in the Middle East,Africa and Asia. Those who fought there have become the stuff of legend. As Abu Uthman al-Kuwaiti, a senior Afghan–Bosnian veteran, said:
[I]Those brothers, they were united. But they had not been united on nationalism, neither were they united on socialism, nor were they united by a common tongue. But they were joined together by tawheed [religious unity] and their obedience and devotion to Allah. It can truly be said that these brothers of ours are the
cream of society. By Allah, we have not seen men such as these before!

The Nazz

12-07-2007, 09:04

Sort of an international version of...of...

Damn it! Someone give me a reference!

Oh, that's right, they did go right along with that.

...

What about Russia or China? How close are they to Pakistan?

The big difference between Serbia and Pakistan is that Pakistan has nukes, and there's no assurance that if Pakistan were bombed, that the government that took over once Musharraf was dead (because that would happen, no doubt) wouldn't supply the al Qaeda people inside their borders with the stuff to make a portable bomb. In fact, I'd bet on them doing just that. And then you're getting a delivery system that can hit damn near anywhere.

CoallitionOfTheWilling

12-07-2007, 09:22

The big difference between Serbia and Pakistan is that Pakistan has nukes, and there's no assurance that if Pakistan were bombed, that the government that took over once Musharraf was dead (because that would happen, no doubt) wouldn't supply the al Qaeda people inside their borders with the stuff to make a portable bomb. In fact, I'd bet on them doing just that. And then you're getting a delivery system that can hit damn near anywhere.

India would probably nuke them if they got hit at all.

Lunatic Goofballs

12-07-2007, 10:16

Well, where have I heard this before...

Oh yeah, four years ago when the people who actually knew what they were talking about, and had some basic knowledge on the region warned that this exact same thing would happen.

Of course, nobody could have predicted this... except those people... who weren't listened to...

The important thing is that we move forward. We should not look back at all the mistakes that were made. There are new mistakes to make. :)

Linker Niederrhein

12-07-2007, 10:26

Lies. Filthy lies. The 500 bn or so USD spent on Afghanistan and Iraq must've had some effect, damnit!

*Giggles madly*

Kyronea

12-07-2007, 10:33

The big difference between Serbia and Pakistan is that Pakistan has nukes, and there's no assurance that if Pakistan were bombed, that the government that took over once Musharraf was dead (because that would happen, no doubt) wouldn't supply the al Qaeda people inside their borders with the stuff to make a portable bomb. In fact, I'd bet on them doing just that. And then you're getting a delivery system that can hit damn near anywhere.

Thank you. Surely not even the most fundiest of fundies will try to bomb Pakistan now that we have this reason. I knew there had to be one out there that would shut EVERYONE up.

Barringtonia

12-07-2007, 10:35

The important thing is that we move forward. We should not look back at all the mistakes that were made. There are new mistakes to make. :)

You can rest assured that no effort or expense is being spared in making them either.

Yootopia

12-07-2007, 10:42

So? I'm only talking about bombing the Al-Queda.
Interesting.

To take out Al-Qaeda and nobody else in Pakistan, you wouldn't need smart munitions. You'd need Stephen Hawking-esque munitions.

Prumpa

12-07-2007, 17:13

The unfortunate part is that al-Qaeda would be just as strong, no matter what form they take. They may be able to coordinate grander attacks with a strong central authority, but with the internet and the global economy, they can expose the free world's greatest strength as its weakness. I don't know if anyone can do any better than we are doing now, short of curtailing the freedoms so many of us hold dear.
And if the US is attacked, as Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff believes, I hope US troops get orders to deploy into Northern Pakistan. That may cause an international incident, but I am tired of how Musharaf is taking his time in those areas. Maybe it'll threaten his power if he gets involved there, but maybe that means a leadership change is needed in Islamabad.
BTW, wouldn't it be ironic if Bush ended his presidency the same way he came in? With a terrorist attack?

LancasterCounty

12-07-2007, 17:19

CanuckHeaven

12-07-2007, 20:04

And if the US is attacked, as Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff believes, I hope US troops get orders to deploy into Northern Pakistan.
That would be worse than the failed invasion/occupation of Iraq.

That may cause an international incident,
Undoubtedly. The US would further alienate traditional allies. I doubt that Canada, the UK, Australia would back such a dumb move. Most of the western world would not agree with it either.

I am also sure that China and Russia would be thrilled. :rolleyes:

but I am tired of how Musharaf is taking his time in those areas. Maybe it'll threaten his power if he gets involved there, but maybe that means a leadership change is needed in Islamabad.
Do you really think that a regime change in Pakistan would be in the best interests of the US?

BTW, wouldn't it be ironic if Bush ended his presidency the same way he came in? With a terrorist attack?
It wouldn't be ironic in the least. IMHO, Bush's failed foreign policy is the likely catalyst. That isn't irony, just sheer stupidity.

New Manvir

12-07-2007, 21:00

YOU FOOL!!!!!!!

If you report facts and news...the terrorists win!!!

Rhursbourg

12-07-2007, 22:23

It's no coincidence that many Al Qaeda operatives studied in Europe, or operated out of Europe - if you were in University campuses in the mid-90's in the UK, you would have seen the growth of Islamism in front of your eyes, directly fueled by Serbia.

ddint see it on my campus one bit

Lorkhan

12-07-2007, 22:28

I don't really think the present strength of Al-Qaida would have been signifigantly altered if the US hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003. In fact, Al-Qaida could be stronger and better equipped had we not began the invasion. Though the conflict in Iraq is bringing in new followers, it's spending that much more resources to fuel their suicide attacks, upkeep, and propaganda. I have no official sources to cite this as fact, but I'm going to assume that Al-Qaida is barely breaking even in that campaign. Not that they need to worry about that anymore however; they already completed their objective. The destabilization of Iraq's social and ethnic climate.

On the other hand, if there was no war in Iraq then Al-Qaida would essentialy be sitting quietly while the international community sat anxiously on the boarders of Pakistan. The moment Al-Qaida fled from Afgani territory into Pakistan they were essentialy untouchable and capable of rebuilding their infrastructure without much intervention. With or without Sadamm Hussein, the Middle Eastern world has always hated the Western world, and Bin Laden and his men could've recruited financers and militia just as easily.

CanuckHeaven

12-07-2007, 22:34

I do not believe it would be a lot different. I believe it will be about the same!
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Most would disagree with you though....

Report: Iraq War Made Terror 'Worse' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml)

The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the number of terrorist groups worldwide and "made the overall terrorism problem worse," a U.S. intelligence official said in a secret study.

The assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, CBS News learned Sunday.

AP Poll: Signs of doubt cloud the war on terror; some fear Iraq war making terror threat worse (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/01/america/NA_GEN_US_AP_Poll_Terror_Doubts.php)

Not everyone agrees the war in Iraq is central to the war on terror, as the Bush administration maintains. Six in 10 polled think there will be more terrorism in this country because the U.S. went to war in Iraq. Some feel strongly that the two wars are separate.
And that poll was taken Sept. 2006!!

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
BTW, your posting style still reminds me of the Cornman.

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 00:29

I don't really think the present strength of Al-Qaida would have been signifigantly altered if the US hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003.
Your opinion....experts disagree.

In fact, Al-Qaida could be stronger and better equipped had we not began the invasion.
Fact?

Though the conflict in Iraq is bringing in new followers, it's spending that much more resources to fuel their suicide attacks, upkeep, and propaganda. I have no official sources to cite this as fact,
Okay. (bolding mine)

but I'm going to assume that Al-Qaida is barely breaking even in that campaign.
Counter view (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0225/p01s02-woiq.html):

Osama bin Laden is likely to gain support and foot soldiers should the US military lead an invasion of Iraq, warn leading counter-terrorism experts and a senior US intelligence official.

Not that they need to worry about that anymore however; they already completed their objective. The destabilization of Iraq's social and ethnic climate.
That was Al-Queda's objective? If it was, then the US accommodated that objective by invading Iraq.

On the other hand, if there was no war in Iraq then Al-Qaida would essentialy be sitting quietly while the international community sat anxiously on the boarders of Pakistan.
And you know this how?

The moment Al-Qaida fled from Afgani territory into Pakistan they were essentialy untouchable and capable of rebuilding their infrastructure without much intervention.
Apparently so. IF the US had invaded Afghanistan with a much larger force and kept them there, the Al-Queda might not have escaped to Pakistan.

Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/pentagon.binladen/index.html)

Did the US really let bin Laden get away? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/dailyUpdate.html)

Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/)

U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16)

With or without Sadamm Hussein, the Middle Eastern world has always hated the Western world, and Bin Laden and his men could've recruited financers and militia just as easily.
Why has "the Middle Eastern world has always hated the Western world"?

Solve that riddle and perhaps we won't see terrorists flying airplanes into buildings?

Mirkana

13-07-2007, 00:56

The real "War on Terror" began before 9/11 with extreme Muslim terrorism in the 90s, and the second intifada starting in 2000. 9/11 was the point when the West realized how dangerous the extreme Muslim terrorists were. The invasion of Afghanistan was the first large-scale Western response to the terrorists.

In retrospect, invading Iraq was probably a mistake. We should have focused our efforts on the extremists themselves. The thing is, Afghanistan was an anomaly in that it was a state harboring terrorists. Outside Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda did not have government support. Continuing the war against Al-Qaeda and its allies should have involved deploying US troops and operatives to countries like Indonesia that have large homegrown terror movements, as well as keeping a large force in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.

Today, Iraq is the major front of the war on terror. Which is why I think we need to stay at least until we've finished off groups like Al-Qaeda. Most of the terrorism today is Iraqi-on-Iraqi, and has little to no association with larger terror networks. The Iraqis should be responsible for dealing with those, but we can leave behind advisors and trainers to help them.

See, if we pull out now, Al-Qaeda will be able to claim victory. That is something we cannot give them. But if we drive them out, WE can claim victory, and embolden our allies.

Prumpa

13-07-2007, 01:33

That would be worse than the failed invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Not if they didn't stay. Or perhaps we could have a limited police action, like what Clinton preffered. Have a few air raids, followed with a few covert ops in the region.

Undoubtedly. The US would further alienate traditional allies. I doubt that Canada, the UK, Australia would back such a dumb move. Most of the western world would not agree with it either.
A terrorist attack would be a game-changer. Before 9/11, no one considered attacking Afghanistan.

Do you really think that a regime change in Pakistan would be in the best interests of the US?

I don't think he needs to leave right now. I do believe that the US, or any other nation, should not take action if Musharaf is overthrown, except if by Islamofascists. Basically, that was the ultimatum delivered to him to gain his support in Afghanistan.
It wouldn't be ironic in the least. IMHO, Bush's failed foreign policy is the likely catalyst. That isn't irony, just sheer stupidity.
It would be ironic if they attacked nine months before his term expired.

Andaluciae

13-07-2007, 01:45

George, George, George...why did you ruin everything by getting us into that clusterfuck in Iraq? Hussein was isolated and harmless...now we've got the entire Arab world against us, and what was perceived as a fairly just retribution in Afghanistan has since become a perceived campaign for empire.

Golly.

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 01:51

Lorkhan

13-07-2007, 03:03

Canuck.
Your dissection of my post is laughable and flattering.
But, I suppose if you want to play that game.
We can.

In fact, Al-Qaida could be stronger and better equipped had we not began the invasion.

Fact?

Could, as in possible but not definate. In fact... fact as in it's a fact that it's possible that they could have been stronger, but not definate.

On the other hand, if there was no war in Iraq then Al-Qaida would essentialy be sitting quietly while the international community sat anxiously on the boarders of Pakistan.

And you know this how?

I'm assuming (And all anyone can do in this situation is assume, whether you like to admit it or not... unless you're in tune with all those alternate realities and timelines that must be floating around out there...) that this would be the outcome of the situation merely because the political and social climate in Pakistan and the surrounding region would not have altered whether there was an occupation of Iraq or not. The tribal leaders in that area still would hate us, and China still probably wouldn't want us invading the country next door. You yourself stated that an invasion/occupation of Northern Pakistan would result more horribly than the failure in Iraq. Musharaf would still be under heavy pressure to keep America on a leash. All of these factors mean that Al-Qaida could sit paitently in the mountains of Pakistan and rebuild their network. Which... seems to be what they did anyway.

INot that they need to worry about that anymore however; they already completed their objective. The destabilization of Iraq's social and ethnic climate.

That was Al-Queda's objective? If it was, then the US accommodated that objective by invading Iraq.

They have been saying since the rise of the insurgency that one of Al-Qaida's objectives has been to destabilize the country and trigger a civil war. Though I don't buy half of what media and intelligence sources tell you when almost half of it is propaganda bullshit, I'm going to put a safe bet on this one. One of the best and most effective ways to derail the American war effort and reconstronction of Iraq in an American image is to slow down and even cripple the process by throwing fire on the already embedded hostilities between Sunni and Shia. It forces the American's to fight two wars, and causes the people that America was meant to win over to accuse them of all the violence, which in part they are responsible for, but I already wrote on this below.

As for the later of those two sentences, that comment wasn't really necissery. We all know that the United States fumbled the ball and crippled an essential gear in Iraq's stability: That being Hussein himself. On the other hand, it wasn't the United States who rose up and said "Hey, everyone strap bombs to your cars and to your chests and drive over to the local rival sect's mosque." or "Hey, everyone. Zerg rush the local market with martyrs!"

You do not have to read a 20 page report on some website or a chapter in a book to figure any of this out.

The moment Al-Qaida fled from Afgani territory into Pakistan they were essentialy untouchable and capable of rebuilding their infrastructure without much intervention.

Apparently so. IF the US had invaded Afghanistan with a much larger force and kept them there, the Al-Queda might not have escaped to Pakistan.

Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/pentagon.binladen/index.html)

Did the US really let bin Laden get away? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/dailyUpdate.html)

Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/)

U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16)

I already have read these and watched several documentries that highlight these cases. Yes. It's true that the United States -COULD- have blocked off Al-Quaida from escaping into Pakistan, and probably would have. But they didn't, and my comments were based on the fact that they didn't...

[quote]Osama bin Laden is likely to gain support and foot soldiers should the US military lead an invasion of Iraq, warn leading counter-terrorism experts and a senior US intelligence official.

And blow them up, or lose them in skirmishes. For as many foot soldiers as he is gaining, Al-Qaida in Iraq specificaly has made no true progress in the last year. In fact, we might be at a turning point as communities are starting to form their own private militias designed for the sole task to defend themselves against and root out Al-Qaida agents.

It is based on this that I say Al-Qaida, with all the strength they have acquired since the war in Iraq, are no longer signifigantly profiting.

Also, if I read the date on that article correctly it was released in 2003. Find me an article written in 2007 that suggests I am wrong, and I will be far more open to accept it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorkhan View Post
Though the conflict in Iraq is bringing in new followers, it's spending that much more resources to fuel their suicide attacks, upkeep, and propaganda. I have no official sources to cite this as fact,

Okay. (bolding mine)

HA! Amusing. See. I can point things out for stupid reasons too. I'm so glad this has brought the debate somewhere.
---

I agree with some of the points you have presented in this thread, and I agree that the war in Iraq has increased global terroism as a whole and played a large part in the reconstruction of Al-Qaida. However; I also believe that Al-Quaida would have managed to survive and rebuild themselves eventually with or without the war. With the problems in the Pacific islands, the continued problems between Israel, Palestine, and Lebenon, the anger fanatics have toward Saudi Arabia's acceptence of US troops on their soil... and so much more, Bin Laden has more than enough resources to feed his machine.

My initial post was merely providing my -opinion- on what -could have happened- without the war. We will never know what -would- have happened to Al-Qaida without the war, because the war did happen. Providing evidence and sources based off the war does nothing to counter my assumptions on what could have happened if there was no war. There -is- nothing to counter what happened if there was no war, because there was a war... and you can't produce facts on "what if" scenarios. Only guesses. You can't eliminate a guess without a countering fact, can you?

And that's all I have to say on that.

Lorkhan

13-07-2007, 03:11

Not if they didn't stay. Or perhaps we could have a limited police action, like what Clinton preffered. Have a few air raids, followed with a few covert ops in the region.

Pakistan, our ally, allowing us to drop bombs on them... would have just as much of a negative effect on the government of Pakistan as marching a brigade into their capital. You have to take into account that Musaraf who is facing more than his share of problems merely for helping the US, would probably be killed in a day if he said "Yeah, you can drop bombs on us."

The effectiveness of covert operations are questionable. Though we could illegaly enter the country without permission, we'd still need to base most of our ops on intelligence gathered in the region. Satallites and drones can only do so much. If the locals aren't giving the CIA, NSA, Green Berets or Delta any info then a covert op won't go too far.

Myotisinia

13-07-2007, 06:36

Perhaps if the US had of concentrated on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, then the headlines might just be a lot different?

If we had done as you suggested we'd have only changed the name of the country you're kveching about. Al Qaeda would have just set up shop in Pakistan (wait a minute, they already have) or Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20, don't you think?

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 07:15

If we had done as you suggested we'd have only changed the name of the country you're kveching about. Al Qaeda would have just set up shop in Pakistan (wait a minute, they already have) or Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20, don't you think?
This isn't about hindsight.....it is about lack of foresight and/or making up lies to invade Iraq and/or ignoring good advice against invading Iraq and/or leaving enough troops in Afghanistan to prevent Al-Queda from retreating to Pakistan and/or spending more money on rebuilding Afghanistan instead of blowing Iraq to bits and/or finding a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine issue and/or realizing that 15 of 19 terrorists that attacked New York/Washington were indeed Saudis and not one from Iraq and/or Busheviks believing the Bush Doctrine(s) and/or ..............

Neo Undelia

13-07-2007, 07:28

The worst part is, that by the time the next elections come around, the American people will have decided that the only party that can protect us from this rebuilt threat is the Republicans.

President Romney, here we come.

Arab Maghreb Union

13-07-2007, 07:46

President Romney, here we come.

Are you trying to give me nightmares? :(

LancasterCounty

13-07-2007, 12:43

*snip*

I understand what the clippings are saying. Those guys are right. However, one has to look at the fact that extremists will use whatever motivations necessary to strike back. People could be using the Iraq War to justify their actions however, if we were not in Iraq, would the samethings have occured? My gut instinct tells me yes.

Berzerk Mooses

13-07-2007, 12:54

It's all just a pursuit for oil anyway.

Ifreann

13-07-2007, 13:46

Re-built? When was Al-Qaeda actually dismantled?

Risottia

13-07-2007, 14:26

The War on Terror has made the world less safe (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html).

Perhaps if the US had of concentrated on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, then the headlines might just be a lot different?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat

World Terrorism Has Increased Sevenfold Since U.S. Invasion of Iraq (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7295)

Hey, looks like finally the CIA hired Cpt.Obvious. Maybe, they'll also listen to him now.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:22

Apparently they are all on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Carpet bombing, or those MOAB things, would seem to be called for.

If something needs bombing in Pakistan, it is the army HQ in Rawalpindi when Musharraf is there with the corps commanders and generals.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:25

If something needs bombing in Pakistan, it is the army HQ in Rawalpindi when Musharraf is there with the corps commanders and generals.

Yea, me being 50% Pakistani, would find it....distrubing if some foreign soldiers just bomb our borders. Let the Pakistanis handle it. If the US want to help Pakistan, then send them weapons! Geez.....:O

Gift-of-god

13-07-2007, 16:25

If something needs bombing in Pakistan, it is the army HQ in Rawalpindi when Musharraf is there with the corps commanders and generals.

But carpet bombing remote areas and inflincting massive damage to rural communities is so much more Kissinger. It's the American way.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:29

But carpet bombing remote areas and inflincting massive damage to rural communities is so much more Kissinger. It's the American way.

Exactly, bombing rural areas=killing innocenting farmers

bombing mountain hideouts=not very effective. Mountains can take a bunch of bombs from US bombers, lol

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:31

Apparently so. IF the US had invaded Afghanistan with a much larger force and kept them there, the Al-Queda might not have escaped to Pakistan.

You forgot Kunduz airlift, where US allowed the airlift of cornered taliban+AQ types to Pakistan, because Pakistan requested it.

Speculation is that there were a lot of Pak intel and other assets in that mix and they wanted them back.

IMO, that single act is majorly responsible for the resurgence that we see today.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:33

You forgot Kunduz airlift, where US allowed the airlift of cornered taliban+AQ types to Pakistan, because Pakistan requested it.

Speculation is that there were a lot of Pak intel and other assets in that mix and they wanted them back.

IMO, that single act is majorly responsible for the resurgence that we see today.

SO your blaming Pakistan for the terrorists on the border? Is that what you are saying?

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:34

Yea, me being 50% Pakistani, would find it....distrubing if some foreign soldiers just bomb our borders. Let the Pakistanis handle it. If the US want to help Pakistan, then send them weapons! Geez.....:O

Me being 100% Indian, I find it just as disturbing when foreign armed militants at the behest of its army leadership bomb my country.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:35

SO your blaming Pakistan for the terrorists on the border? Is that what you are saying?

Not Pakistan. But its leadership.

Since it is not an elected one, I cannot blame all Pakistanis.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:37

Me being 100% Indian, I find it just as disturbing when foreign armed militants at the behest of its army leadership bomb my country.

Thank you....That is like Canada sending soldiers into the USA to destroy Apple computers....:D

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:39

Thank you....That is like Canada sending soldiers into the USA to destroy Apple computers....:D

That didn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you want to make silly jokes, make silly jokes. I enjoy silly jokes.

If you want discuss or debate, please make your argument.

If you want to pass off one as the other, please don't expect me to take you seriously.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:42

Not Pakistan. But its leadership.

Since it is not an elected one, I cannot blame all Pakistanis.

Well, Pakistan IS a Semi-presidential republic with a 5-year term. Although the current president, Pervez Musharraf, came to power through a military coup, that doesn't mean that all of the next upcoming presidents will do that same.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:42

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19422&prog=zgp&proj=zsa
Rethinking Western Strategies Toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe
By Frederic Grare
Publisher: Carnegie Endowment
Carnegie Endowment Report, July 2007

Key Conclusions:

• Pakistan’s army has inflated the threat of religious sectarianism and jihadi extremism outside its borders, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir, for its own self-interest. Faced with this seeming instability and a perceived lack of alternatives, the West adopted a more lenient attitude toward Pakistan’s military regime as a moderate stalwart against Islamic extremism.

• Restoring stable civilian rule would lessen Pakistan’s obsession with the threat posed by India and focus Pakistan’s energy on its own economic development.

• Of approximately $10 billion in assistance given to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, only $900 million has gone to development—the bulk being channeled to the military.

U.S. and European Policy Recommendations:

• The West should insist that: General Musharraf cease violating the constitution by holding the position of both president and the chief of the army staff; free and fair elections be held with international monitoring; Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir and Afghanistan cease; and all terrorist infrastructure within the country be disbanded.

• U.S. financial assistance should be explicitly directed towards any shortcomings that impede Pakistan’s cooperation in combating terrorism, and remain dependent on results.

• Policies, and if necessary, sanctions, should be directed towards the military and Pakistan’s small elite. The general population should, as much as possible, be shielded from affects of withholding assistance.

• The United States should cease its campaign against political Islam in Pakistan. It has proven counterproductive and made U.S. policy dependent on Pakistan’s military, which claims to be the strongest rampart against religious extremism.

“This report proposes a middle way,” writes Grare. “It addresses some of the challenges that the Pakistani military regime’s regional policies create for the international community, arguing that none can be resolved in isolation from the others. Arguing that the nature of the regime is the main source of trouble for the region, it urges a return to a civilian government according to Pakistan’s own constitution.”

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:44

That didn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you want to make silly jokes, make silly jokes. I enjoy silly jokes.

If you want discuss or debate, please make your argument.

If you want to pass off one as the other, please don't expect me to take you seriously.

Actually, to be honest. It made perfect sense. Now I guess I have to explain every little word.

Canada *in story*= RL USA
Apple Computers *in story*= RL Taliban
USA *in story*= RL Pakistan

Now let's see if you can get the picture....

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:46

Well, Pakistan IS a Semi-presidential republic with a 5-year term. Although the current president, Pervez Musharraf, came to power through a military coup, that doesn't mean that all of the next upcoming presidents will do that same.

I am sorry, but I don't get what you are saying.

My point was that I am not blaming Pakistanis for the actions of its leadership, since Musharraf is not an elected representative (I am discounting his "referendum" where he got 96% votes including getting more than the registered voters in few areas) and the army does not have a mandate from Pakistanis to decide on policies.

What has your above post got anything to do with that?

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:48

ALSO, the Pakistani coup wasn't that bad.

1) It was bloodless, no dead people, etc.

2) Nawaz Sharif, then Prime Minister of Pakistan was not withdrawing Pakistani forces from Kargil in Indian-administered Kashmir. Had he not withdrawed, another war could have erupted.

Sharif was then going to fire Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff, to bring in an ISI director in his place. Much of the mililtary sided with Musharraf, out of the country at the time. Sharif then closed the airport *Karachi* to stop Musharraf from landing. THe military then took over the airport and then Musharraf landed. He then took power and exiled Sharif to Saudi Arabia.

Christmahanikwanzikah

13-07-2007, 16:50

Wait, this is news?

This would be a great thread if there was any US intel that suggested that al Qaida (or, for that matter, ANY terrorist group) was ever destroyed, destabilized, or effected in the least bit.

Rebuilt? No. Regrouped, more like. Even though the latter still suggests that al Qaida was ever in disarray to begin with.

New Brittonia

13-07-2007, 16:50

oh great, gonna have to put duct tape on my doors and windows now

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:51

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:52

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 16:53

Actually, to be honest. It made perfect sense. Now I guess I have to explain every little word.

Canada *in story*= RL USA
Apple Computers *in story*= RL Taliban
USA *in story*= RL Pakistan

Now let's see if you can get the picture....

*speechless*

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 16:54

Is there a problem? Pakistan wants to defend its borders against India in the east, and Taliban in the west. They also want to have some of Kashmir, and China has occupied an area too, but India "administrates" China's area.
As far as I know, the official line of both India and Pakistan is that they both see all of Kashmir as their territory, although I don't see any agreement except formalising the line of control as likely. Save ending the military dictatorship, finding an agreement over Kashmir would be one of the best thinks Musharraf could do for his country.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 16:55

As far as I know, the official line of both India and Pakistan is that they both see all of Kashmir as their territory, although I don't see any agreement except formalising the line of control as likely.

You forgot that China had a part of the area before India jumped in and administrated China's claim

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 16:57

You forgot that China had a part of the area before India jumped in and administrated China's claim
That's not relevant when discussing India/Pakistan relations, though, unless discussing who should have what in greater detail.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:01

That's not relevant when discussing India/Pakistan relations, though, unless discussing who should have what in greater detail.

Yes, I am discussing who should have what in greater detail...:P

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:03

ALSO, the Pakistani coup wasn't that bad.

1) It was bloodless, no dead people, etc.

Does not mean that it did not result in shedding of blood later.

2) Nawaz Sharif, then Prime Minister of Pakistan was not withdrawing Pakistani forces from Kargil in Indian-administered Kashmir. Had he not withdrawed, another war could have erupted.

Funny you blame this on NS, when he had no control over the affair.

Sharif was then going to fire Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff, to bring in an ISI director in his place. Much of the mililtary sided with Musharraf, out of the country at the time. Sharif then closed the airport *Karachi* to stop Musharraf from landing. THe military then took over the airport and then Musharraf landed. He then took power and exiled Sharif to Saudi Arabia.

I know.

And that point is that an elected PM having 2/3 majority cannot fire the COAS despite the COAS planning a disasterous war with a nuclear armed neighbour ?

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 17:04

Yes, I am discussing who should have what in greater detail...:P
You've discussed Musharraf's coup, the Pakistani system of government, and bombing Pakistan, but nothing to suggest where an Indian/Pakistani border should be. The closest you've been is where you (wrongly) said Pakistan wants some of Kashmir, and I corrected you.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:06

and China has occupied an area too, but India "administrates" China's area.
:confused:

China has occupied Aksai Chin which is still under their control and not ""administrated"" by India.

There is an LAC (line of actual control) along that border just like the LoC along the Indo-Pak border.

Remote Observer

13-07-2007, 17:08

:confused:

China has occupied Aksai Chin which is still under their control and not ""administrated"" by India.

There is an LAC (line of actual control) along that border just like the LoC along the Indo-Pak border.

Let's not get started on the India - China thing. Didn't I read about some pipeline deal that fell through?

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:09

You forgot that China had a part of the area before India jumped in and administrated China's claim

:confused:

China's claim on Aksai Chin is based on its claims that it belongs to Tibet, because somewhere in the past, that area was controlled by Tibet for some time. And since Tibet belongs to China because somewhere in the past, some Tibetan kings paid tribute to China.

By this logic, Texas now belongs to Spain, because once it belonged to Mexico which once belonged to Spain.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:09

You've discussed Musharraf's coup, the Pakistani system of government, and bombing Pakistan, but nothing to suggest where an Indian/Pakistani border should be.

I will get there, young one. Be patient.

Does not mean that it did not result in shedding of blood later.

Funny you blame this on NS, when he had no control over the affair.

I know.

And that point is that an elected PM having 2/3 majority cannot fire the COAS despite the COAS planning a disasterous war with a nuclear armed neighbour ?

How did he no control over the affair? Kicking out Musharraf without any valid reason started the whole thing.

I don't see any government officials or Pakistanis getting killed by Musharraf, do you?

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:10

Let's not get started on the India - China thing. Didn't I read about some pipeline deal that fell through?

I wouldn't know what you read or not. :p

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:11

You've discussed Musharraf's coup, the Pakistani system of government, and bombing Pakistan, but nothing to suggest where an Indian/Pakistani border should be. The closest you've been is where you (wrongly) said Pakistan wants some of Kashmir, and I corrected you.

NO you didn't correct me. I am still onto my point that Pakistan wants some of Kashmir

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 17:15

I will get there, young one. Be patient.
Don't be so condescending. You can discuss border demarcation if you like, but it's not the topic at hand. You said Pakistan only wants some of Kashmir. I said Pakistan, like India, claims all of Kashmir. That's the topic at hand. We are discussing relations between India and Pakistan and what they claim at the minute, not China.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:15

How did he no control over the affair? Kicking out Musharraf without any valid reason started the whole thing.

So it is ok for Musharraf to start the Kargil war without getting the elected govt involved in the process?

Forget about the govt, he did not even involve the navy and the airforce in the process.

I don't see any government officials or Pakistanis getting killed by Musharraf, do you?

lol.

Akbar Khan Bugti and the Balochs.

The so called "missing persons" case pursued by the ousted Chief Justice.

The collateral damage from US/NATO bombing the border areas. Yes, I blame it on Musharraf (or the army whose policies he inherited and is representative of).

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 17:18

You forgot Kunduz airlift, where US allowed the airlift of cornered taliban+AQ types to Pakistan, because Pakistan requested it.

Speculation is that there were a lot of Pak intel and other assets in that mix and they wanted them back.

IMO, that single act is majorly responsible for the resurgence that we see today.
Yes, I did forget about that. It is just one in a number of colossal mistakes that the US has made in this whole unholy War on Terror.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:20

Don't be so condescending. You can discuss border demarcation if you like, but it's not the topic at hand. You said Pakistan only wants some of Kashmir. I said Pakistan, like India, claims all of Kashmir. That's the topic at hand. We are discussing relations between India and Pakistan and what they claim at the minute, not China.

How am I condescending? If you haven't noticed, Aryavartha and I are talking about Musharraf NOT Kasmir. So, before you post, look at "the topic at hand."

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 17:20

NO you didn't correct me. I am still onto my point that Pakistan wants some of Kashmir
Pakistan claims all of Indian administered Kashmir. The dispute between India and China is separate.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:22

So it is ok for Musharraf to start the Kargil war without getting the elected govt involved in the process?

Forget about the govt, he did not even involve the navy and the airforce in the process.

lol.

Akbar Khan Bugti and the Balochs.

The so called "missing persons" case pursued by the ousted Chief Justice.

The collateral damage from US/NATO bombing the border areas. Yes, I blame it on Musharraf (or the army whose policies he inherited and is representative of).

Do you know what the Balochistan conflict is? That is your reason.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:24

Pakistan claims all of Indian administered Kashmir. The dispute between India and China is separate.

Nope.

Here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Kashmir_disputed-areas_2003.jpg)

See, India is clamining China's area.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:24

Pakistan claims all of Indian administered Kashmir. The dispute between India and China is separate.

In essence, yes. The main demand is on the vale of Kashmir. But legally speaking, they are disputing the accession of the state of Jammu&Kashmir by Hari Singh, which includes

the "Azad" Kashmir and the "Northern Areas" - with Pakistan

Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir including Ladakh

Aksai Chin and the Shaksgam valley donated by Pak to China.

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 17:26

How am I condescending? If you haven't noticed, Aryavartha and I are talking about Musharraf NOT Kasmir. So, before you post, look at "the topic at hand."
If you want to play it that way, the OP referred to AQ, not Musharraf. I made a point about who claims what in Kashmir, not about the India-Pakistan border. That's not what we were talking about. You can discuss with Aryavartha what you like about Musharraf, but until I post something about it, it's really nothing to do with me.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 17:27

Do you know what the Balochistan conflict is? That is your reason.

It appears that you do not know what the conflict is.

You asked for instance where Musharraf killed Pakistanis.

Bugti and Balochis are Pakistanis, aren't they?

Musharraf killed them, did'nt he?

This would not have happened if they had an elected political leadership, would it?

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 17:29

Nope.

Here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Kashmir_disputed-areas_2003.jpg)

See, India is clamining China's area.
And? That's nothing to do with the Indian-Pakistani dispute. Since it's a dispute with India and China, it will be solved by India and China, not by Pakistan, since they recognise it as a part of China, not disputed Kashmir.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:30

It appears that you do not know what the conflict is.

You asked for instance where Musharraf killed Pakistanis.

Bugti and Balochis are Pakistanis, aren't they?

Musharraf killed them, did'nt he?

This would not have happened if they had an elected political leadership, would it?

*slaps head*

The people in that region want indepedence. SO there is a conflict going on. Get it? People will have to die.

Brb, lunch. Nice conversation with ya, Aryavartha.

Newer Burmecia

13-07-2007, 17:32

*slaps head*

The people in that region want indepedence. SO there is a conflict going on. Get it? People will have to die.

Brb, lunch. Nice conversation with ya, Aryavartha.
Enjoy. I had bangers and mash.:D

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 17:37

This would be a great thread if there was any US intel that suggested that al Qaida (or, for that matter, ANY terrorist group) was ever destroyed, destabilized, or effected in the least bit.
Okay, here you go:

In-a-Gadda Da-Vida We Trust (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0528-05.htm)

"Al Qaeda is on the run," the president said in Little Rock, Ark. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore."

That was from May 2003.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:42

Enjoy. I had bangers and mash.:D

Back, lol. I just had a turkey snadwich and chips....w00t! ;)

Liuzzo

13-07-2007, 17:45

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Most would disagree with you though....

Report: Iraq War Made Terror 'Worse' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml)

AP Poll: Signs of doubt cloud the war on terror; some fear Iraq war making terror threat worse (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/01/america/NA_GEN_US_AP_Poll_Terror_Doubts.php)

And that poll was taken Sept. 2006!!

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

BTW, your posting style still reminds me of the Cornman.

oh don't worry, if you count the puppets on this thread alone it shows why I hate debating one person with 7 different personalities. Sometimes two puppet master joining together so you have 8 or more idiots to face. honest debate, 1 on 1 is really not much to ask. I've seen these puppets before and they always appear in conjunction with one another. Unless each one of these "individuals" are drawn into the same thread by chance you think?

Remote Observer

13-07-2007, 17:53

I wouldn't know what you read or not. :p

http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/07/11/analysis_india_drops_mbi_gas_pipeline/7319/

NEW DELHI, July 11 (UPI) -- As Myanmar becomes more influenced by the Chinese, New Delhi has dropped the much-hyped Myanmar-Bangladesh-India gas pipeline project, intensifying the energy battle in Southeast Asia.

"Myanmar is taking India for a ride on gas supply from its fields despite the fact that two Indian state-run companies control 30 percent stake there," said N. Janardhan Reddy, chairman of an Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee attached to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. "And its growing closeness to China has forced India to drop plans to lay a gas pipeline from Myanmar via Bangladesh."

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 17:54

How am I condescending? If you haven't noticed, Aryavartha and I are talking about Musharraf NOT Kasmir. So, before you post, look at "the topic at hand."
The topic at hand is:

U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt

Please stay on topic. Thanks!! :D

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 17:59

The topic at hand is:

U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt

Please stay on topic. Thanks!! :D

Lol for being off topic!

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 18:06

*slaps head*

The people in that region want indepedence. SO there is a conflict going on. Get it? People will have to die.

And it is just a coincidence that the previous Baloch revolt was under Zia and now there is another one under Musharraf and there was none during the brief periods of civilian rule.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 18:07

The topic at hand is:

U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt

Please stay on topic. Thanks!! :D

We are on topic. :p

I usually blame all problems in that region on the Pak army. And usually I am right too.:D

Remote Observer

13-07-2007, 18:08

The topic at hand is:

U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt

Please stay on topic. Thanks!! :D

Oh, so if we don't post, "US is full of Phail over al-Qaeda!!!" we're off topic, eh?

Maineiacs

13-07-2007, 18:41

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 18:45

China is an ally of Pakistan, largely because they both hate India.

Yup.

1) Military exercises with those two nations

2) trade

3) Pakistan buys Chinese weapons and modifies them or keeps them the same

4) Pakistan is going to buy a few Chinese destroyers later on.

And the Sino-Indian War was because of Indian military incursions north of the McMahon Line.

Maineiacs

13-07-2007, 18:50

Yup.

1) Military exercises with those two nations

2) trade

3) Pakistan buys Chinese weapons and modifies them or keeps them the same

4) Pakistan is going to buy a few Chinese destroyers later on.

And the Sino-Indian War was because of Indian military incursions north of the McMahon Line.

I always figured it was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

CanuckHeaven

13-07-2007, 18:54

Oh, so if we don't post, "US is full of Phail over al-Qaeda!!!" we're off topic, eh?
I am not dictating what side of a debate you should engage.

However, I do believe that people such as yourself that have to use an assortment of puppets to drive home their questionable points shouldn't even be allowed into the debates period. I think it is a disengenuous practice.

The war on terror will never be won by the Busheviks. It is time for them to stand aside and for new strategies to be brought forward.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 18:54

I always figured it was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Kinda, but they are good economic and militarily, etc allies.

Maldorians

13-07-2007, 18:57

China's current trade volume with all South Asian nations reaches close to US$20 billion a year. Within the region, China has developed a strong and all encompassing relationship with Pakistan. It is common to hear of Pakistani's referring to their Chinese counterpart as 'brothers' and the same sentiment is often echoed by the Chinese. Chinese tourist and businesses regularly visit Pakistan and have dominated foreign investment into Pakistan's rapidly growing economy. This relationship extends beyond economic, defense, social and political spheres and is the culmination of centuries of contact and trade between the two countries. It is known that ancient China traded with the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan. The more modern relation stems from diplomatic overtures made between Deng Xiaoping and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto during the 1970's. More recently, China has signed several free trade agreements with Pakistan as well as several bilateral trade agreements such as the Early Harvest Agreement and the establishment of a duty free export zone in Pakistan's Northern Area's. Pakistan and China continue to remain the strongest of allies and trade and contacts have steadily increased over the years. China continues to invest heavily into Pakistan, and is providing assistance in the development of that countries 2nd major port at Gwadar[8] as well as improving infrastructure and the development of a pipeline from the said port towards China's western regions.[9]. Intrestingly, the cause of this growing friendship is no longer based upon mutual distrust of India but on the geopolictal importance of Pakistan itself (namely Gwader and other ports). Building a sophistocated rail and pipeline network from China to the Arabian sea via Pakistan is a much wanted project on behalf of the Chinese. Such a passage would allow trade to and from Africa and Europe to be completed in half the time. The importance of Gwader to the Chinese is comparable with American reliance on the Panama canal. Overall, Chinese investment and trade in the region has experienced phenomenol growth over the past decadeds.

Chinese-Pakistani relations

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 23:38

And the Sino-Indian War was because of Indian military incursions north of the McMahon Line.

Utter BS.

India is happy with McMahon line. Even today they are willing to settle for it. It is China which is the revisionist state. Why would India start incursion on things they don't even have any interest in?

The purpose of the war was to take Aksai Chin, because that the route from Tibet to Sinkiang goes thru it.

Reason why China declared a unilateral ceasefire after getting the piece of Kashmir they wanted and withdrew from Arunachal Pradesh even though they thrashed the Indian army there and held territory there.

Try again.

Aryavartha

13-07-2007, 23:40

It is known that ancient China traded with the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan

I hear that Muhammedenjaro and Har-ur-appa were the main cities of the Pakistani civilization...

The Brevious

14-07-2007, 22:54

The War on Terror has made the world less safe (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html).

Perhaps if the US had of concentrated on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, then the headlines might just be a lot different?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat

World Terrorism Has Increased Sevenfold Since U.S. Invasion of Iraq (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7295)
Good thing we've been fortifying them for a few years now with U.S. taxpayer money just so they'd stay out of obvious political prominence.

Yes, paying off Al-Qaida.
Please don't beat me up, here's my lunch $.

CanuckHeaven

15-07-2007, 01:00

Good thing we've been fortifying them for a few years now with U.S. taxpayer money just so they'd stay out of obvious political prominence.

Yes, paying off Al-Qaida.
Please don't beat me up, here's my lunch $.
Well......the Bushes and Bin Ladens go back a long, long way.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

Bush-Bin Laden connections (http://www.oilempire.us/bushbinladen.html)

*buys lunch for the Brevious one. :)

New Stalinberg

15-07-2007, 02:10

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes

Source. (http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html)

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3611

Source. (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

So since the USA invaded Iraq in 2003...

Deaths from the war: 3,611

Aproximate deaths from car crashes: 168,000

Shit, that means my mom's 2002 Windstar is far more dangerous than any freedom hating terrorist out there.

Greater Trostia

15-07-2007, 02:35

al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability

They're building a new Death Star! A fully-operational battle station! HELP!

Sorry, ignore this post. I just had to make a stupid Star Wars reference.

CanuckHeaven

15-07-2007, 05:01

Source. (http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html)

Source. (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

So since the USA invaded Iraq in 2003...

Deaths from the war: 3,611

Aproximate deaths from car crashes: 168,000

Shit, that means my mom's 2002 Windstar is far more dangerous than any freedom hating terrorist out there.
Then the US government should have spent $500 Billion on improving roads and making safer cars instead of blowing up roads in Iraq?

BTW, your death toll for the war is way off. Try hundreds of thousands, or do Iraqi lives mean nothing to you?

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html)

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

And.......how about the number that have been injured (hundreds of thousands?), including over 26,558 US troops.

It is this kind of brutalization that assists Al-Queda and insurgents to gain new recruits.

Hundreds of thousands march in Iraq to demand end of U.S. occupation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5338)

You can try to trivialize the war in Iraq, but it won't work.

Edit: I forgot to mention something rather important.....how about the number of displaced Iraqis because of the war?

U.N.: More than 4 million Iraqis displaced (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19055852/)

Kwangistar

15-07-2007, 05:20

Well......the Bushes and Bin Ladens go back a long, long way.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

Bush-Bin Laden connections (http://www.oilempire.us/bushbinladen.html)

*buys lunch for the Brevious one. :)

If someone's relative does something bad we should probably assume their whole family is the same way, right?

Greater Trostia

15-07-2007, 05:27

If someone's relative does something bad we should probably assume their whole family is the same way, right?

...if someone's family has family connections with another family, we should probably assume the family has family connections with that other family. ;)

D-Pacific

15-07-2007, 10:58

Good job, Bush. :headbang:

United Beleriand

15-07-2007, 11:06

Try hundreds of thousands, or do Iraqi lives mean nothing to you?Since when do foreigners' fates mean anything to US Americans? Wouldn't that be unpatriotic?

LancasterCounty

15-07-2007, 13:04

Since when do foreigners' fates mean anything to US Americans? Wouldn't that be unpatriotic?

Funny comment coming from you as you do not care at all for the lives of innocent civilians in another country I could name. But then again, most people around the world are hypocrits.

Cameroi

15-07-2007, 13:11

u.s. intel IS al-cia-da. and has been from jump.

why else would "suspected terrorist" be held INCOMUNICADO, other then to keep the sheeple ignorant of this reality? to gather intel? by torture? get real. the only thing torture gets anyone to tell you is what you let on you're wanting to hear in the first place, whether there's any truth in it or not.

sheesh! does it really take rocket science to see through this like a glass window?

=^^=
.../\...

CanuckHeaven

15-07-2007, 13:11

Since when do foreigners' fates mean anything to US Americans? Wouldn't that be unpatriotic?
Not according to a multitude of right wingers here who profess how much they care about the Iraqi people up to and including liberating them and giving them democracy. Their genuine concern for the welfare of Iraqis is indeed heartwarming. :rolleyes:

Edit: the fact that these same right wingers are willing to back the US expenditure of $500 Billion to improve the lives of Iraqis clearly demonstrates their compassion for the average Iraqi, :rolleyes: despite the fact that the majority of Iraqis want the US to end the occupation of their country ASAP.

Edit 2: it is ironic that this outpouring of "compassion" by right wing America towards the welfare of Iraqis has lead to an increase of hatred towards the US by the Arab world and an increase of worldwide terrorism.

Old Alba

15-07-2007, 13:33

Here is the link to Cheney's policy thinktank:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here is the link to the document that says America has 2 options in the post-ColdWar world. The first is to sit back, rest on our laurels, and soak up the peace. It was an alarm call to special interests like military contractors, for example. The second is, without any real opposition to American power anymore, to pursue an all out global hegemony, thereby securing America's role and influence throughout the newly globalizing world. The document mentions that the only problem with option 2 is the image to the rest of the world that in a time of peace we'd be busy building up all of our armaments. They'd be a little worried. No, they needed a catastrophe it says--a Pearl Harbor type catastrophe to "force us" into the pursuit of global domination. Well, needless to say, they miraculously got their catastrophe about 2 years later. How fortunate, huh?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Old Alba

15-07-2007, 14:08

Good job, Bush. :headbang:

OMG! They're doing a fantastic job, DP. While we may not agree with it on a purely moral basis, it's exactly what they've set out to do. The fact that terrorism and terroristic acts have increased globally is proof. America is the world police. They're incrementally gaining more and more power and influence around the globe. They gain power and influence by playing the good guy and coming to everyone's aid when they're the victim of a terrorist atrocity. As long as there are events everyone is happy to help stop the bogeyman, Al Qaeda. And as long as there is chaos in the middle east, then America will stay there, because they're not going to let go of the prize--and that's the oil. Middle eastern oil is the greatest material prize the world has ever seen. America recognized this early on and jockeyed for position.

Here's the link to Cheney's thinktank:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Here's a link to the document that was released prior to the WTC attack(9/11):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

In it, they discuss the future of American influence and power. After the Cold War was definitively at an end, leaving us with hardly any threatening opposition around the globe, they felt America had two choices. The first was to sit back and enjoy the peace and possibly be caught off guard by the rise of yet another great foe. The second was to focus our resources and initiative on rebuilding our forces. However, in times of peace neither the public nor Congress look fondly upon undue military expenditures and strive to cut those budgets back whenever they can. That's what happened all through the Clinton administration with base closures. No,what they needed, and this is stated in the document, was some kind of Pearl Harbor type catastrophe. A real threat to America. Well, a year later the towers were hit. How fortunate, huh? Read the document. It's extremely enlightening and educational.

NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt