NationStates Jolt Archive

Osama didn't particularly like Saddam, Iraq's a shit-hole now, and the world isn't too much fonder of the United States due to that little war we started..

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

Your first mistake is equating 'Al-Qaeda' or the 'extreme Islamist movement' as a homogeneous organization with a centralized structure and leadership, where all organs of the group are responsible to Osama in his secret bunker giving orders to cells across the world. All these 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq', 'Al-Qaeda in Algeria' or 'Al-Qaeda in Somalia' are simply rebel groups that has existed for decades before 9/11 yet just decided to use the name Al-Qaeda because of whole thing with America, Al-Qaeda is a franchise more than anything.

So thinking of the organization in terms of constituents controlled units like the Taliban etc is wrong. Also Saddam wasn't very religious, he didn't care if girls wore short skirts, he only killed people if they got political agitating.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

Well, they didn't like Saddam much, so that's actually a win for them.

The attacks give them some thing to brag about I guess. As well, as the civilian casualties occurring in these wars may create sympathy for Al Qaeda, so they have some motives.

Then again, these type of people usually aren't the brightest.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

Desprit people do desprit things. (No, I can't spell)
I think it was mostly a vengance thing and to le the world know "yeah, this is real, listen to us; we have power."

Well, they didn't like Saddam much, so that's actually a win for them.

Point taken, they weren't Saddam-backers by any stretch of the imagination, but surely they'd rather have an oppressive regime that uses firing squads on women who show their faces in public than another form of government.

The attacks give them some thing to brag about I guess. Also definitely true.

As well, as the civilian casualties occurring in these wars may create sympathy for Al Qaeda, so they have some motives.
Yes, but wouldn't you think that nearly 3,000 unexpected civilian deaths would give the U.S. a bit more support in the sympathy department?


Then again, these type of people usually aren't the brightest.
If, by "these type of people" you mean radical terrorist wackjobs, then I couldn't agree more :cool:

Well, they didn't like Saddam much, so that's actually a win for them.

The attacks give them some thing to brag about I guess. As well, as the civilian casualties occurring in these wars may create sympathy for Al Qaeda, so they have some motives.

Then again, these type of people usually aren't the brightest.

I'd say it was successful, it caused a resession in the US. However on the up side, it created the 9/11 truthers giving us something to laugh at.

Saddam's government was a secular one, IIRC. The burka, veils, etc. weren't mandatory, if I remember correctly. So, yeah, they're probably happy Saddam is gone and the situation in Iraq is now growing more and more anti-US.

Point taken, they weren't Saddam-backers by any stretch of the imagination, but surely they'd rather have an oppressive regime that uses firing squads on women who show their faces in public than another form of government.
Well if I remember correctly (which I rarely do) didn't they try and kill him?

Yes, but wouldn't you think that nearly 3,000 unexpected civilian deaths would give the U.S. a bit more support in the sympathy department?

The response hasn't done much for the U.S. in terms of international sympathy and the middle east has merited much more sypathy than this for a much longer period of time.

Point taken, they weren't Saddam-backers by any stretch of the imagination, but surely they'd rather have an oppressive regime that uses firing squads on women who show their faces in public than another form of government.

Also definitely true.


Yes, but wouldn't you think that nearly 3,000 unexpected civilian deaths would give the U.S. a bit more support in the sympathy department?



If, by "these type of people" you mean radical terrorist wackjobs, then I couldn't agree more :cool:

You're getting things confused, Saddam wasn't a religious fundamentalist. He used firing squads on people that opposed him. Nowadays, with all the religious tensions, I'd say such things are actually worse.

I'm talking about in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. In these places, the Muslim casualties may bring in some sympathy (and do remember that September 11th was 6 and a half years ago, while civilians are dying each and every day, and much more than 3000 have lost their lives).

Saddam's Iraq was a regime that promoted secularism. Iraqi women used to wear short skirts, make-up, and weren't forced to wear the Bhurka, at least not by the government. Women were never shot by the government for not wearing the Bhurka, quite the opposite.

Now Iraqi women wear the Bhurka out of fear. The recent string of brutal murders of Iraqi women in Iraq who have been judged "decadent" by religious extremists, are forcing Iraqi women into submission.

Saddam's Iraq was a regime that promoted secularism. Iraqi women used to wear short skirts, make-up, and weren't forced to wear the Bhurka, at least not by the government. Women were never shot by the government for not wearing the Bhurka, quite the opposite.
.

In fact, pre-US invasion, Iraq was one of the leading nations in terms of womens health care in the world.

As for what the purpose of 9/11 was, our media tells us that Al-qeada wanted to hit the targets they did, hoping that those institutions would crumble figuratively, was well as literally. Thus instantly toppling America from our lofty perch, and sending us to chaos.

I really dont believe that.

I think they just crashed some planes into various locations and hoped for as much damage as they could inflict. No more, no less.
These people arent stupid. They knew they didnt have a snowball's chance in Hell of destroying the "Great Satan" in one fell swoop, they just wanted to make a point.

"You can be attacked as well. You arent invincible."

Duly Noted.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

They didn't understand their enemy. If they had read a book about American History(A short and bloody story), they would have realized that symbolic gestures like 9/11, real or imagined, are exactly what this country feeds on to go completely apeshit. They poked a hornet's nest with a stick. I remember my reaction when I found out that an airplane had crashed into the Trade Center. When I found out that there had been two, I responded: "That was no accident" about twenty minutes later, "Do these assholes have any idea what they've just done? They really don't know their enemy, do they?"

I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck the Bush Administration twisted it into a hide and seek game in the desert for WMDs. *shrug*

Usama Bin Laden's strategic goal of 9/11 was to draw the U.S. into a war against multiple Muslim nations, and defeat us like they did to the Soviets. Once the U.S. was proven to be weak and powerless, the jihadists thought that the Muslim world would rise up against and overthrow the U.S.-dependent Muslim governments, especially the Saudi Royal family, and restore a new Islamic Caliphate across the Middle East based on Islamic law, feared and respected by the rest of the world like in the past.

*Thus, Al-Qaeda has massively failed to achieve what 9/11 intended to because the Muslim masses did not rise up and no Muslim government was overthrown (thanks directly to American grand strategy, and yes that includes the Iraq theatre)

If you hadn't noticed, the Moderate vs Extremist battle in the Middle East that has been ignited by recent events, including 9-11, the invasion of Iraq and the Lebanon crisis, is still ongoing.

And to be honest, I don't think the US is helping.

Usama Bin Laden's strategic goal of 9/11 was to draw the U.S. into a war against multiple Muslim nations, and defeat us like they did to the Soviets. Once the U.S. was proven to be weak and powerless, the jihadists thought that the Muslim world would rise up against and overthrow the U.S.-dependent Muslim governments, especially the Saudi Royal family, and restore a new Islamic Caliphate across the Middle East based on Islamic law, feared and respected by the rest of the world like in the past.

*Thus, Al-Qaeda has massively failed to achieve what 9/11 intended to because the Muslim masses did not rise up and no Muslim government was overthrown (thanks directly to American grand strategy, and yes that includes the Iraq theatre)

How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda?

By who's measure - yours or Al Qaeda's? Al Qaeda's goals, as laid out in the 1998 fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html) were to liberate Saudi Arabian "holy lands" occupied by the US since 1991, stop US aggression against Iraq, and stop US support for Israel, by killing Americans and bleeding the US economy.

Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch,

Which was "telegraphed", as Al Qaeda had been attacking US interests for almost ten years by that point.

but look at what happened as a result

US military forces have left Saudi Arabia, and the US is being bled out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Al Qaeda has achieved some of their stated goals.

The rest of what you put forth were your goals for al Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda is a franchise more than anything.

Osama should've copyrighted the name when he had the chance. He could have made thousands of dollars.

Point taken, they weren't Saddam-backers by any stretch of the imagination, No they were not.

but surely they'd rather have an oppressive regime that uses firing squads on women who show their faces in public than another form of government.No they dont.

In fact, pre-US invasion, Iraq was one of the leading nations in terms of womens health care in the world.

As for what the purpose of 9/11 was, our media tells us that Al-qeada wanted to hit the targets they did, hoping that those institutions would crumble figuratively, was well as literally. Thus instantly toppling America from our lofty perch, and sending us to chaos.

I really dont believe that.

I think they just crashed some planes into various locations and hoped for as much damage as they could inflict. No more, no less.
These people arent stupid. They knew they didnt have a snowball's chance in Hell of destroying the "Great Satan" in one fell swoop, they just wanted to make a point.

"You can be attacked as well. You arent invincible."

Duly Noted.seconded.

they just wanted to make a point.

"You can be attacked as well. You arent invincible."

Pretty much that. By no measure do they have the ability for a stand up fight. The only guy screaming 'fight like a man' on the playground is the guy who has a head over all the other dudes there.

It was a provocation, and a good one. In the long run it divided the US, it bolstered recruitment for their cause and gave them a rallying point.

bin Laden had offered his protection to Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait and was insulted when he was refused. When the US stationed troops there that was the grandest insult, so the only thing unpleasant to AQ about Saddam going down was that they didn't do it themselves.

so 9/11 was just unlucky and Al-Qaeda shouldnt have been engaged?

so 9/11 was just unlucky and Al-Qaeda shouldnt have been engaged?

Al-Qeada? Certainly.

Scourge the planet, after them.

Iraq?

No.

Usama Bin Laden's strategic goal of 9/11 was to draw the U.S. into a war against multiple Muslim nations, and defeat us like they did to the Soviets. Once the U.S. was proven to be weak and powerless, the jihadists thought that the Muslim world would rise up against and overthrow the U.S.-dependent Muslim governments, especially the Saudi Royal family, and restore a new Islamic Caliphate across the Middle East based on Islamic law, feared and respected by the rest of the world like in the past.

*Thus, Al-Qaeda has massively failed to achieve what 9/11 intended to because the Muslim masses did not rise up and no Muslim government was overthrown (thanks directly to American grand strategy, and yes that includes the Iraq theatre)

^Truth

No, we had no choice but to retaliate on AQ bases in Afghanistan and anywhere else..
The war on Iraq was a huge mistake.

But at the same time we destroyed AQ bases and claim victory.. we should have been thinking about the long term, about ways to change our imperialistic ways.

Indeed.

Maybe finding ways to keep these people from wanting to attack us in the first place.

so 9/11 was just unlucky and Al-Qaeda shouldnt have been engaged?No, we had no choice but to retaliate.. on AQ bases in Afghanistan and anywhere else..

-The war on Iraq was a huge mistake.-

But at the same time we destroyed AQ bases and claim victory.. we should have been thinking about the long term, about ways to change our imperialistic ways. about ways to disengage in the ME and Israel.

Invading Iraq forced Saudi Arabia to stop funding Al-Qaeda and actually fight them.

The only other option was to invade Saudi Arabia...

Invading Iraq forced Saudi Arabia to stop funding Al-Qaeda and actually fight them.

The only other option was to invade Saudi Arabia...

What?

Since you reject American "imperialism", would you support Russian, German, Chinese or Japanese imperialism. They have a weak* history of exporting freedom when they imperialize.

Invading Iraq forced Saudi Arabia to stop funding Al-Qaeda and actually fight them...It is not the SA Gov that finances AQ.. its private groups. Money from Oil.

What?
I agree, Osama was already a billionaire before he become a terrorist.

Before the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia helped fund Al-Qaeda and did not arrest jihadists. After the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia stopped funding AQ and began arresting jihadists by the hundreds.
Links, perhaps?

Before the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia helped fund Al-Qaeda and did not arrest jihadists. After the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia stopped funding AQ and began arresting jihadists by the hundreds.

I'd say it was successful, it caused a resession in the US.No *it* didn't.
However on the up side, it created the 9/11 truthers giving us something to laugh at.What would that be? Do you have anything? Or is this another "they don't have feelings" attitude of yours?

His billions were in Saudi Arabia though.

His billions were in Saudi Arabia though.

He actually spent alot of it in Afghanistan helping to fight the Soviets, and then afterwards in building his movement.

Links, perhaps?

http://www.stratfor.com/saudi_arabia_al_qaedas_military_leadership_deficit

Saudi Arabia: Al Qaeda's Military Leadership Deficit
Stratfor Today » April 6, 2005 | 0330 GMT
Summary

Saudi Arabia’s security forces April 5 reportedly killed a top militant, Saud bin Hammoud al-Otaibi, considered the military commander of al Qaeda’s branch in the kingdom. Al-Otaibi is the third jihadist military commander eliminated since June 2004. Considering that only four of Saudi Arabia’s 26 most-wanted militants remain at large, al Qaeda likely lacks a viable military leadership in Saudi Arabia, even though there might be no shortage of militants. This development further demonstrates that al Qaeda’s situation in the kingdom is becoming increasing untenable.
Analysis

An intense three-day gunbattle between Saudi security forces and al Qaeda-linked jihadist elements came to end April 5. Varying accounts place the number of militants killed in the operation, which took place in Saudi Arabia’s northwestern al Qaseem province, at between 14 and 18; six other militants were captured. The dead included individuals on Riyadh’s most-wanted list, including Saud bin Hammoud al-Otaibi, thought to have been al Qaeda’s military commander in the kingdom.

Al-Otaibi represents al Qaeda jihadists’ third military leader in the Saudi kingdom eliminated in the last 10 months. This, coupled with the killing or capturing of 22 out of the kingdom’s 26 most-wanted militants since May 2003, indicates that al Qaeda may be out of commanders who can plan, prepare and execute attacks. Al Qaeda’s lack of experienced commanders, even though many militants remain within its fold, signals the possible end of the militant group’s days as a potent force in the kingdom.

Al-Otaibi surfaced in November 2004 as the new successor to Saleh Mohammed al-Oufi who was believed to have died from wounds received in a July raid against his residence in Riyadh. Al-Oufi himself had only taken over after the Saudi al Qaeda branch’s most prominent leader, Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, was gunned down by Saudi security forces on June 18, 2004.

However, recent audio messages posted on jihadist Web sites purportedly from al-Oufi and calling for attacks against U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf states raised the possibility that al-Oufi might still be alive. Given the contradictory reports, it is likely that al-Oufi was not killed, but was incapacitated by severe wounds such that he could not carry out the duties of leading day-to-day operations. Al-Otaibi could have performed those functions on his behalf, while al-Oufi could have been relegated to providing guidelines.

Regardless of whether al-Oufi is alive, al-Otaibi — who led military operations on the behalf of the group — is dead. Now, only four people remain out of the 26 on the kingdom’s most-wanted list who could be appointed al Qaeda’s commander in Saudi Arabia. The new commander will represent the group’s sixth leader since June 2003, when the first jihadist commander, Yusuf al-Ayeri, was killed in a shoot-out with Saudi authorities. Moreover, this individual likely will not possess the same leadership qualities as those of his predecessors.

Thus far, the military commanders of al Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula — the group’s official designation — have been individuals trained in Afghanistan during the country’s 1980-92 civil war, and/or who experienced fighting in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Some also graduated from the training facilities established by al Qaeda during the 1996-2001 rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It is likely that the next generation of leaders could come from those who have fought in Iraq. Saudis constitute the largest group of foreign fighters in Iraq. It is even likely that al Qaeda’s Saudi branch falls under the command of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the jihadist movement’s leader in Iraq. After all, al Qaeda central leader Osama bin Laden called on his deputy, al-Zarqawi, to expand his operations beyond Iraq in a recent communique. It is likely that bin Laden anticipated the problems of leadership in his home country.

Nevertheless, neither Iraqi veterans taking over al Qaeda’s leadership in Saudi Arabia or al-Zarqawi’s expansion of operations beyond Iraq facilitates the execution of attacks in Saudi Arabia, given Iraq’s distance from the Saudi theater. The kingdom may abound with jihadist fighters, ideologues and even political principals, but without a capable military commander, al Qaeda may not be able to sustain its attacks — the only activity that makes al Qaeda, al Qaeda.

9/11: What was the point?
Watch "Zeitgeist", then decide.

Right, and it all originated in Saudi Arabia.

Before the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia (Government) helped fund Al-Qaeda.Incorrect.

Before the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia did not arrest jihadists. Incorrect.

After the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia (Government) stopped funding AQIncorrect.

After the Iraq war Saudi Arabia began arresting jihadists by the hundreds.any given month the number of arrest is more related to the number of accusations (leads).. false or not.

Its pretty much like the US system: We offer mucho dinero $$$ bounties >> the peasants capture some poor devil from the rival tribe >> We send him to Guantanamo.

The Saudis arrest+torture 500 hundred hopping at least 2 of them are actually Al-Qaeda.

No that makes zero sense. Saudi Arabia has to arrest real jihadists because the blood is on their hands if the U.S. is attacked by Saudi jihadists, and Al-Qaeda declared war on the Saudi govt, that plus were waiting just over the border, and they have every reason to stop letting jihadists go free.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

any given month the number of arrest is more related to the number of accusations (leads).. false or not.

Its pretty much like the US system: We offer mucho dinero $$$ bounties >> the peasants capture some poor devil from the rival tribe >> We send him to Guantanamo.

The Saudis arrest+torture 500 hundred hopping at least 2 of them are actually Al-Qaeda.

No that makes zero sense. Saudi Arabia has to arrest real jihadists because the blood is on their hands if the U.S. is attacked by Saudi jihadists, and Al-Qaeda declared war on the Saudi govt, that plus were waiting just over the border, and they have every reason to stop letting jihadists go free. They dont want to be overthrown by jihadists or by U.S. forces, so arresting true jihadists is a must.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

Quite contrary to your observations, rights actually declined in the Middle East after 9/11. And their goal is not to reduce rights. Their goal is revenge and the succeeded a bit. They also gained a hell of a lot more supporters thanks to what we did after.

They also gained a hell of a lot more supporters thanks to what we did after.

yea they needed at least a few noobs to replace the more than 2/3 of Al-Qaeda prime that we annihilated.

yea they needed at least a few noobs to replace the more than 2/3 of Al-Qaeda prime that we annihilated.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I think Free World Elites is a tad naive on how Iraq was pre- and post-war, among other things.

Iraq under Saddam was never really bad. It was decent as far as dictatorships went. During and after the war, it literally descended into chaos. Saddam held the country together with pretty much minimal oppression, unless you wanted to replace him or something.

Al-Qaeda never really was. It is a generalized other, since the way the groups operate means they are isolated and outside of each other. They don't even know the others exist, half the time. We are told they are the same "Al-Qaeda" because that is all most people know about, mostly out of ignorance or naivety. Osama may have led a coalition of people, sure, but ultimately it wasn't any more than a bunch of separate militias poking the Iraqi government with a stick. They couldn't do anything until Saddam got usurped. THAT is most likely why they attacked America. Not out of desire to win against America, desire to win control of Iraq when the dust settles and America leaves.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

there are a number of backward presumtions being implied here. i won't attempt to go into all of them in detail. suffice it to say the real reason such events were provoked and allowed to take place can clearly be seen in what has been put over on the american people ever since.

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

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

it was a bitch slap to the US "you mess with us, we mess with you" and i think AQ is now using osama's soviet strategy, (play off the us aginst other islamist groups, stretch the military to the breaking point) with iraq,lebanon,gaza, afganistan all heavily taxing the US and Isreal, the US is near the breaking point since, they cannot send units one after another, without proper rest and relief

yea they needed at least a few noobs to replace the more than 2/3 of Al-Qaeda prime that we annihilated.

true, after afganistan, the vetrans were taken out, all he had left was the taliban, and the wanna bes

They couldn't do anything until Saddam got usurped. THAT is most likely why they attacked America. Not out of desire to win against America, desire to win control of Iraq when the dust settles and America leaves.

wtf, there are 20 % sunni, and 60% shia, and the shia militas are better armed, AQ couldnt have won if they had a running start. i'm betting that Iraq will end up as under Al-hakim or Al-sadr control, with a shia theocracy

Indeed.

Maybe finding ways to keep these people from wanting to attack us in the first place.

I don't believe you can keep them from attacking. You are a smart guy you should realize it is world domination or bust for the extremist.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda?

I honestly do not understand why they picked masskilling over destroying the towers before most people arrived. It would have been applauded much more by the international community.

I don't believe you can keep them from attacking. You are a smart guy you should realize it is world domination or bust for the extremist.

Without a sellable cause an extremist is just a nutbag screaming on a corner...

I honestly do not understand why they picked masskilling over destroying the towers before most people arrived. It would have been applauded much more by the international community.

If they wanted masskilling they would have waited until later in the day.

The attack location was purely symbolic the "World Trade Center Towers" represented "symbolically" the power of the US. That is why it was attacked previously.

The only good thing to come out of the whole mess was:

The presentation the US gave to the UN on the WMD.

Not just some rhetoric behind the White House podium...or an insignificant press release to some dodgy media house...no, this was centre stage for all the world to see.

Think they will try that again to justify anything...probibly.
Will they ever be believed again...probibly not.

Well if they were taking a situationist view they were probably trying to provoke the US into over-reaction such as: invading muslim countries, enacting draconian laws limiting people's freedom in the name of security, maybe a bit of kidnapping and torture, producing a wave of anti-muslim hysteria that has the knock-on effect of polarising people's views...of course the US is much too sensible to fall for such a trick.

I think Free World Elites is a tad naive on how Iraq was pre- and post-war, among other things.

Iraq under Saddam was never really bad. It was decent as far as dictatorships went.

Saddam held the country together with pretty much minimal oppression, unless you wanted to replace him or something.

Al-Qaeda never really was.

Really.....? Are you being honest with yourself - because it takes a true believer to say Al-Qaeda wasn't a big deal and that Iraq under Saddam was never really bad. I'm naive because i think 9/11 was huge and that Saddam was a real bad guy....?

I'm naive because i think 9/11 was huge and that Saddam was a real bad guy....?

Well... the absolute amount of deaths caused by Al Queda is indeed rather insignificant when compared to other needless deaths. I agree that sounds harsh, but it is true nevertheless :(

I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck the Bush Administration twisted it into a hide and seek game in the desert for WMDs. *shrug*
Because he's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, either.

They didn't understand their enemy. If they had read a book about American History(A short and bloody story), they would have realized that symbolic gestures like 9/11, real or imagined, are exactly what this country feeds on to go completely apeshit. They poked a hornet's nest with a stick. I remember my reaction when I found out that an airplane had crashed into the Trade Center. When I found out that there had been two, I responded: "That was no accident" about twenty minutes later, "Do these assholes have any idea what they've just done? They really don't know their enemy, do they?"

I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck the Bush Administration twisted it into a hide and seek game in the desert for WMDs. *shrug*


If only Bin Ladle had bothered viewing one segment of US history
7th dec 1941

The US really does'nt like sneak attacks and does tend to go apeshit afterwards

However the US did make a fatal mistake in Oct 2001 in not getting Iran to help in beating up the taliban because the Iranians hated them just as much as the US did due to an incident where some Iranian diplomats were shot dead by the taliban and nearly went to war with them.

But beyond a few diplomatic nicities such as returning downed US airmen who landed in Iran and turning a blind eye to the occasional special forces mission flying over we did f*** all

Then came Iraq
oh jeez

A prime example of how to take a noble mission such as getting rid of a fascist dictator and replacing it with a working democracy and then totally fooking it up with stupid decisions.

A discussion came up about this at work, and it really raised some questions in my head. How were the September 11th attacks a good idea for Al-Qaeda? Sure, they hit us with a pretty severe suckerpunch, but look at what happened as a result (Taliban out of power, Saddam out of power, more womens rights in the Middle East). I mean, from their perspective, wouldn't the Middle East have been "better off" if the Taliban was still in power and so was Saddam? I mean, in that case, there wouldn't have been any of those "crazy" ideas like civil rights and equality floating around in peoples minds.

The point was simple: to cause terror on public television.

I must say that Al-Qaida was massively successful in that respect. They made most or all Americans so afraid that they consented to pieces of legislation that in a different climate would be cause for outright insurrection; they sparked a global powder keg that nobody had paid much attention to before that point -- namely, radical Islam; they helped America lose favour in the eyes of her former allies; they became as synonymous with "evil" as Hitler or Nero. A two-bit disorganised group of radically different, splintered factions united under an ill-defined banner, suddenly getting all the media attention in the world, becoming a household name and a news staple? Yeah, I'd say that in terms of the war on terror, the terrorists are definitely winning. Maybe if world media ignored them completely, and started treating their "attacks" like any other crime, we'd be making progress.

I'd also mention something about the different sects of Islam, but I really don't know enough about the subject to conclusively say whom Al-Qaida wanted out of the way and whom they were allied to. It's possible that they also goaded the US into eliminating political rivals, such as Saddam Hussein, so that they could cause further chaos and gain more influence in Iraq under the pretences of "starting a Muslim government".

The point was simple: to cause terror on public television.

I must say that Al-Qaida was massively successful in that respect. They made most or all Americans so afraid that they consented to pieces of legislation that in a different climate would be cause for outright insurrection; they sparked a global powder keg that nobody had paid much attention to before that point -- namely, radical Islam; they helped America lose favour in the eyes of her former allies; they became as synonymous with "evil" as Hitler or Nero. A two-bit disorganised group of radically different, splintered factions united under an ill-defined banner, suddenly getting all the media attention in the world, becoming a household name and a news staple? Yeah, I'd say that in terms of the war on terror, the terrorists are definitely winning.indeed.

one thing I am 100% sure is that we (US) are not winning the war on terror.

Not only were they able to murder 3,000 people but they got the US to get rid of Saddam for them and they have been able to set up shop Iraq as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not only that but they got western soldiers to go over there that they get to try to kill daily which for them, they blow a load just thinking about. Not only that but its easier than ever to recruit. So thats basically what they got out of it.

Where was the warning ...Dont read this whilst drinking???

If we go WAY back into American history...some say as far back as "7th dec 1941"...we can learn about the American psych.

America doesnt have any history of note.
To quote Eddie Izzard "This house is over 50 years old..."
Probibly why American forces worldwide have a problem when confronted by several thousand year old customs..."I dont understand this strange "new" concept...lets bomb them anyway"

Where was the warning ...Dont read this whilst drinking???

If we go WAY back into American history...some say as far back as "7th dec 1941"...we can learn about the American psych.

America doesnt have any history of note.
To quote Eddie Izzard "This house is over 50 years old..."
Probibly why American forces worldwide have a problem when confronted by several thousand year old customs..."I dont understand this strange "new" concept...lets bomb them anyway"

In english plz?