The Return of Al Qaeda

[GaryC 7]

In other words there is no proof - just supposition and reasoned suspicion. Not saying it didn't happen - but lets not jump to wild conclusions.

It isn't a wild conclusion. It's a reasonable conclusion. But the left is using the lack of proof as a hammer to say the war was wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In other words there is no proof - just supposition and reasoned suspicion. Not saying it didn't happen - but lets not jump to wild conclusions.

It isn't a wild conclusion. It's a reasonable conclusion. But the left is using the lack of proof as a hammer to say the war was wrong.

I wouldn't say its 'the' reason, but it is certainly 'a' reason.

But again do you think that the outcome of this has has so far been broadly detrimental or beneficial to the cause of AQ and similar groups? That's really the key test isn't it?

[Heracles 417]

Did you by any chance miss the OP post?

Well if that is the case, why don't they come out in the open and show themselves?

Why would they do that?

So your against the use of the military to smoke them out of their rabbit holes but then you turn around and suggest al qaeda is growing and we are losing.

As well as suggesting we should solve this with the international community even though Al Qaeda is saying death to 'America'.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Infidel

[homesick_american 1]

It's like when you kick down a fire ant mound....come back the next day and you have a dozen of them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did you by any chance miss the OP post?

Well if that is the case, why don't they come out in the open and show themselves?

Why would they do that?

So your against the use of the military to smoke them out of their rabbit holes but then you turn around and suggest al qaeda is growing and we are losing.

As well as suggesting we should solve this with the international community even though Al Qaeda is saying death to 'America'.

Nice try but no. This thread is about the resurgence of AQ in Pakistan. Iraq is a separate but tangential issue that has essentially made the regional security situation worse. Are there extremists there now? Undoubtedly. Where they there and/or active before we decided to "smoke them out"? Debateable. Honestly - its not too hard to understand.

[Heracles 417]

It's like when you kick down a fire ant mound....come back the next day and you have a dozen of them.

Fire ants are not human beings plotting to kill us are they..

[Heracles 417]

Nice try but no. This thread is about the resurgence of AQ in Pakistan. Iraq is a separate but tangential issue that has essentially made the regional security situation worse. Are there extremists there now? Undoubtedly. Where they there and/or active before we decided to "smoke them out"? Debateable. Honestly - its not too hard to understand.

I want workable solutions. All I hear from anyone against military action is rhetoric.

[trueimage 0]

Nah, I am waiting to see what those that say there is no terrorist threat will say.

Well, seems that a trillion dollars and an additional three and a half thousand lost American lives later, we're right back to square one.

What an accomplished strategery.

What do you expect? Kill over 100,000 innocent people with bombs and whatever else. Think there might be people pissed off at the US?

The US is not responsible for the daily bombings of civilians. The day the army advises its soldiers to go and blow themselves up and deliberately kill women and children then we can talk about it.

This pro 60's attitude never seizes to amaze me where the perpetrators are given a free ride while anyone fighting for the innocent is always at fault. These terrorist must be thinking ###### westerners are dumb.

The US is responsible for over 100,000 innocent deaths in the Iraq conflict. Most of was due to the bombings done at the start of the conflict. But there are people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and takes a bullet from a US soldier. You could call it the cost of war, but it makes for very good propaganda to drive up recruitment. Look at how many soldiers joined the military because of 9/11.

We are also indirectly responsible for innocent deaths due to the civil war in the country. We created the environment that well spawned the civil war.

Yes, the terrorists do think the west is dumb because of all its done to improve its recruitment and money. And because of how its armed some of the countries and factions that are now our enemy.

Responsible for civil war? We are being blamed for inspiring people to fight for what they believe in? We're at fault because people stood up and said we're tied of this and we're gonna fight for our freedom and our lives? And this a bad thing?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

There is some truth in Bush's denial of AQ's "resurgence"--quite simply, "resurgence" must needs follow a fall-and-decline.

As Musharraf was actually fertilising AQ until 2001/09/11, and Pak military didn't do much checking in Waziristan until someone tried bumping-off Musharraf, the more logical conclusion is that they were basically sitting-tight till about now in Waziristan (and parts of Balochistan, especially due to his mishandling of relations with Bugtis and Mengals).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nice try but no. This thread is about the resurgence of AQ in Pakistan. Iraq is a separate but tangential issue that has essentially made the regional security situation worse. Are there extremists there now? Undoubtedly. Where they there and/or active before we decided to "smoke them out"? Debateable. Honestly - its not too hard to understand.

I want workable solutions. All I hear from anyone against military action is rhetoric.

Surprisingly there's a lot of that in this thread. For military action I might add. That stuff about "people fighting 'fair' and 'face to face' in the ancient world, for one example

Again - I don't understand why after taking great pains to establish the unique, clandestine nature of this threat that you seem to celebrate fighting them with conventional military means.

[Heracles 417]

Surprisingly there's a lot of that in this thread. For military action I might add. That stuff about "people fighting 'fair' and 'face to face' in the ancient world, for one example

Again - I don't understand why after taking great pains to establish the unique, clandestine nature of this threat that you seem to celebrate fighting them with conventional military means.

I'll ask again, so what is your step by step solution?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given that you suggested previously that we should "drop the bomb" let me ask you this - Do you really think that ideology can be conquered by conventional military means?

Requires a simple yes/no answer.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

why the name change again?

Precluding the 99% possibility that I did it for the 'hell of it' - lets go for the 1% possibility that I did it just to annoy you

i still prefer fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Calling for Saddam's ouster is one thing. I remember that the resolution that was passed in Congress authorized the use of force as a last resort and stipulated an international approach. Bush's marching orders did not fulfill either of these pre-requisites. And Bush clearly lacked a viable post Saddam plan when he sent the boys in. Collecting the flowers the Iraqis would throw our way was about as much of a plan as he had. That naive little #######.

I'll hand it to you ET. You have your head firmly in the sand and you just don't want to see anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. Your bent on blaming Bush and nothing will deter you. Your not anti-war, your just anti-Bush. It clouds everything else you do.

does it sound anything like this?

link

[Saddle Bronc 124]

why the name change again?

Precluding the 99% possibility that I did it for the 'hell of it' - lets go for the 1% possibility that I did it just to annoy you

i still prefer fishdude

There is also cent-percent probability that he was a fan of the old show "The Prisoner".

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=875112