# Tell me we're not fighting Al Queda in Iraq.



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080422100510.qnl6rneq&show_article=1

".....He also used the two-and-a-half hour message to urge Muslims to join militant groups, mainly in Iraq, where he claimed that the insurgency against the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition forces is bearing fruit.
" 'I urge all Muslims to hurry to the battlefields of Jihad (holy war), especially in Iraq,' Zawahiri said in the message, the second in a two-part series to answer about 100 questions put to him via online militant forums. 

 'The situation in Iraq heralds an imminent victory of Islam and the defeat of the crusaders and those who stand under their flag,' he said."

Now, please, I'd like all you dems and libs to step forward and say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorism, or Al Queda.


----------



## manifold (Apr 22, 2008)

If your assertion is true, then we're going about it all wrong.  If Iraq is truly a threat, then shouldn't be just bomb the fuckers back to the stone age?

Oh wait, they're already in the stone age...what came before that?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

The Iraqis aren't the threat. The jihadists are.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080422100510.qnl6rneq&show_article=1
> 
> ".....He also used the two-and-a-half hour message to urge Muslims to join militant groups, mainly in Iraq, where he claimed that the insurgency against the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition forces is bearing fruit.
> " 'I urge all Muslims to hurry to the battlefields of Jihad (holy war), especially in Iraq,' Zawahiri said in the message, the second in a two-part series to answer about 100 questions put to him via online militant forums.
> ...



Who says they're listening to him? Nice that you take direction from terrorists.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

I love it. You guys are idiots. The leaders of Al Queda SAY Iraq is a war zone and they are calling people there to fight us. 

But as usual, you stick to your mantra, and when reality intrudes fall back on "they're just too stupid to understand what's REALLY happening" routine.

"In his message, Zawahiri also called on the various jihadist groups operating in the country to unite behind the "more advanced" Al-Qaeda-backed "Islamic State of Iraq". 

Honey, I don't take directions from terrorists. I want to wipe them out. Your side is the one who wants to placate them.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2008)

Yes, Allie, they've been saying that for five years.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

And yet the libs claim we shouldn't be in Iraq, that the war there is a sham, that it has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything will be better for everyone if we leave.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2008)

You can't really be this dumb.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

Once again, the assertion that if you don't understand it or agree with it, it's "dumb". The American people are "dumb". The terrorists are "dumb". Everybody's "dumb". Except you.


----------



## manifold (Apr 22, 2008)

Allie,

With all due respect, you really need to work on your comprehension of the concept of cause and effect.  What you've posted is a side-EFFECT of our occupation of Iraq, not the cause for our decision to go in to begin with. It may be a cause for us sticking around, but that isn't exactly what you said now is it?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2008)

Being jerked around by terrorists--Bush's legacy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

Sigh.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Sigh.




Agreed. His time in office is almost over, buck up.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2008)

And I wonder what excuse you'll use when your nominee loses this time.


----------



## dread (Apr 22, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Being jerked around by terrorists--Bush's legacy.






Gee.... You have the 411 where all the terrorists hide? 

Please by all means tell the rest of us where they are. 

This could have solved everything. America wouldnt have had to call out the terrorists to rumble in Iraq.


----------



## Dogger (Apr 22, 2008)

manifold said:


> Allie,
> 
> With all due respect, you really need to work on your comprehension of the concept of cause and effect.  What you've posted is a side-EFFECT of our occupation of Iraq, not the cause for our decision to go in to begin with. It may be a cause for us sticking around, but that isn't exactly what you said now is it?



Exactly. Al-Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq until we toppled Saddam. According to the 9/11 Commission report, Osama bin Laden met once in 1994 with Iraqi officials, but they were unable or unwilling to reach an agreement. 

The authoritarian Saddam did not want uncontrolled crazies loose in his country. That included Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who located his operations in the Northern areas, under the cover of the no-fly zone. Once we toppled Saddam, al-Zarqawi came into the open and affiliated his existing organization with Al-Qaeda, thus creating Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Think of it as Terrorist Franchising.

Al-Qaeda is Suni, and does not get along well with the Shia majority or the Shia government. There is every reason to believe that once US troops are withdrawn, the non-Al-Qaeda insurgents will redict their murderous attention to the Al-Qaeda interlopers.

Bush's war has created an unstable, no-win situation that will probably lead to massive violence when we leave. Similar events occured in Southeast Asia when we left Vietnam and in India/Pakistan when the Brits left that region.

That violence is likely to occur whenever we leave, be it now or in 10 years. It became all but certain the moment we went in. If American troops are dying simply to delay the inevitable, it's better to take them out now, let the bloodshed commence, and hope they get it out of their system quickly.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 24, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Exactly. Al-Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq until we toppled Saddam. According to the 9/11 Commission report, Osama bin Laden met once in 1994 with Iraqi officials, but they were unable or unwilling to reach an agreement.
> 
> The authoritarian Saddam did not want uncontrolled crazies loose in his country. That included Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who located his operations in the Northern areas, under the cover of the no-fly zone. Once we toppled Saddam, al-Zarqawi came into the open and affiliated his existing organization with Al-Qaeda, thus creating Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Think of it as Terrorist Franchising.
> 
> ...



Amost since your inception here, I haven't agreed with you.  I do however, agree with this post.

The war against terrorism, an IDEA, is never going to end.  Not globally, not federally, and not locally.  Will the war on drugs ever be won?  No.  Will the war on poverty ever be won?  No.

The only viable solution, if you can even call it that, is to split the country up in 3 pieces and keep a close eye on the situation.  We're going to maintain a presence in that country forever, that much is obvious.  But our current troop commitment needs to reduce drastically, because we're losing lives of soldiers that we might REALLY need somewhere else, at another time.

Those people are never going to cave and allow us to militarily impose our political will on them.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 24, 2008)

manifold said:


> If your assertion is true, then we're going about it all wrong.  If Iraq is truly a threat, then shouldn't be just bomb the fuckers back to the stone age?
> 
> Oh wait, they're already in the stone age...what came before that?



Liberal Democrats !


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 24, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Amost since your inception here, I haven't agreed with you.  I do however, agree with this post.
> 
> The war against terrorism, an IDEA, is never going to end.  Not globally, not federally, and not locally.  Will the war on drugs ever be won?  No.  Will the war on poverty ever be won?  No.
> 
> ...



AQ did have a presence in Iraq, proven over and over and over. Plus it was growing stronger even with Sadam in power , because we had just booted them out of Afghanastan, and they needed somewhere to go

And the war on drugs has done a lot of good, drug usage is down considerably since it started, and poverty, REAL poverty, in America basically doesnt exist.  Ok, go ahead and give me some real live example of someone in the US, but real poverty, if you want to see it, go to the Philippines.
Everybody in America now has the opportunity to get out of poverty, free schooliing, tons of jobs available.


----------



## manifold (Apr 24, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> AQ did have a presence in Iraq, proven over and over and over. Plus it was growing stronger even with Sadam in power , because we had just booted them out of Afghanastan, and they needed somewhere to go



Wow, I never thought of that!  Debating is super easy when you get to make up your own facts.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 24, 2008)

dread said:


> Gee.... You have the 411 where all the terrorists hide?
> 
> Please by all means tell the rest of us where they are.
> 
> This could have solved everything. America wouldnt have had to call out the terrorists to rumble in Iraq.



Yea, and Clinton laid the hammer down on em. Oh wait, he did let Osama go free. Hmmmm


----------



## doeton (Apr 24, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Yea, and Clinton laid the hammer down on em. Oh wait, he did let Osama go free. Hmmmm



Tora Bora.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Apr 24, 2008)

manifold said:


> Wow, I never thought of that!  Debating is super easy when you get to make up your own facts.



You know, a MANIFOLD is something that sucks in air and blows out  hot air.


----------



## Dogger (Apr 24, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> AQ did have a presence in Iraq, proven over and over and over.



There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. We created the vaccum that allowed them to set up shop there.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was located in the Northern areas, but he operated under the cover of the no-fly zone. Bush had an opportunity to take him out before the invasion, but wanted him in place because it made good propaganda. Once we toppled Saddam, al-Zarqawi came into the open and affiliated his existing organization with Al-Qaeda, thus creating Al-Qaeda in Iraq.


----------



## doeton (Apr 30, 2008)

oh yeah, wait Bush was President when we let osama go at Tora Bora


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 30, 2008)

We are not fighting al qaeda in Iraq. We are trying to prop up a corrupt regime in a nation torn by sectarian strife which we helped create by an unlawful invasion so we can get our asses outta there.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 30, 2008)

Yawn.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 1, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I love it. You guys are idiots. The leaders of Al Queda SAY Iraq is a war zone and they are calling people there to fight us.
> 
> But as usual, you stick to your mantra, and when reality intrudes fall back on "they're just too stupid to understand what's REALLY happening" routine.
> 
> ...



What came first, the chicken or the egg? Of course we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. The question is, were they there before we got there?


----------



## mattskramer (May 1, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> AQ did have a presence in Iraq, proven over and over and over.



Where is this proof?  Do you have any substantive and clear proof of this to back up your statement?  Id settle for some information from a reputable source (not some republican lackey or Bush apologist).


----------



## manifold (May 1, 2008)

onthefence said:


> What came first, the chicken or the egg? Of course we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. The question is, were they there before we got there?



The egg.


----------



## JimH52 (May 1, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> AQ did have a presence in Iraq, proven over and over and over. Plus it was growing stronger even with Sadam in power , because we had just booted them out of Afghanastan, and they needed somewhere to go
> 
> And the war on drugs has done a lot of good, drug usage is down considerably since it started, and poverty, REAL poverty, in America basically doesnt exist.  Ok, go ahead and give me some real live example of someone in the US, but real poverty, if you want to see it, go to the Philippines.
> Everybody in America now has the opportunity to get out of poverty, free schooliing, tons of jobs available.



Please post a link to support your assertion that Al Queda's presence in Iraq was growing under Saddam.  A link from an accredited news agency, no a bush clone media outlet.  Saddam feared Muslim fanatics and was basically a secular dictator.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 1, 2008)

manifold said:


> The egg.



How do you figure?


----------



## Dr Grump (May 1, 2008)

onthefence said:


> What came first, the chicken or the egg? Of course we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. The question is, were they there before we got there?



No.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 2, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> No.



I know. She didn't. That is why she is quiet.


----------



## JimH52 (May 3, 2008)

onthefence said:


> I know. She didn't. That is why she is quiet.



It is easy to go away after making a baseless assertion.  I do it myself occasionally.


----------



## manifold (May 3, 2008)

onthefence said:


> How do you figure?



I figure the chicken wasn't the first species to use the "egg" method of reproduction.  I also figure it's highly likely that whatever species the modern chicken immediately evolved from, was already using the egg.  Therefore the very first chicken, would've hatched from an egg.  Ergo, the egg came first.


----------

