al-qaeda training manual
 

I came across this online this morning. Of course curiosity lead me to read it. I hardly know what to say, I just think you all should take a look at it if you haven't all ready. Its an al-qaeda training manual siezed in a raid in manchester and translated in english. Just the introduction itself is eye-opening in a way. It reminds me what we're up against and what these people believe.

I hear arguments all the time about how it is the US's fault that 9/11 happened, that its the US's fault the terrorists hate us and want to kill us. Thats complete bullshit. It says in black and white why the terrorists are fighting us and it is not because of "American imperialism".

It talks about the fall of their caliphate on march 3, 1924. (hardly a US imperialist agenda. and you would think more of islamo-fascist anger would be directed at britain) It goes on to describe the spread of the western way of life. "They aimed at producing a wasted generation that pursued everything that is western and produced rulers, ministers, leaders, physicians, engineers, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and information specialists." but of course according to the terrorists, according to the koran, "And Allah's enemies plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of all planners is Allah." - according to these asshats my way of life is a conspiracy to end theirs.

For them there is no comprimise, no use for diplomacy because, "Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief; but rather confronts it." Yeah, if only america would be nicer to the muslims and take their military bases out of saudi arabia the terrorists would stop and be our friends. I've heard that argument before.

The manual also goes on to describe one of the top five missions of the terrorists: that brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security and to spread rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy. - but according to amnesty international these are not just rumors and part of the terrorists plan, but just part of the evil american empire.

I'm done ranting now. Its way too early and I have work to do, but when you find the time, take a look at what the fucks believe and what they want to do to you and your family, and don't ever forget.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

I don't think that this Thread wil last long, but:

First of all I think it is wrong to belive that this manual shows "what we're up against and what these people believe" (who are "these people" anyway?). It shows what AlKaida thinks, not all terrorists, especially in Iraq, are AlKaida. Additionally that manual describes only the views of the fundamentalists, not all muslims (if you meant that with "those people").

I said that numerous times already, the reason for the mess that the middle east is, is the how the whole west acts (IMO). That inculdes the British, who started a lot of the trouble, and the Americans who continue the same shit.

Funny, one second AI is a reliable source and the next second the are not to be taken seriously

But what are you trying to suggest?
That the torture never happend?
Or that the torture is not that bad because the terrorist excepted and planned to get tortured?

I think the point is not to trust a terrorist at his word.

I'm sure the truth to that is somewhere in the middle.

by "those people" I mean terrorists, not muslims as a whole. And yes, terrorists in iraq believe the same thing al-qaeda does, if it were any different they wouldn't be blowing themselves up killing fellow brothers and sisters, only because they are seen as enemies of islam for cooperating with the new government.

I don't know what you are saying, but I would consider what al-qaeda says to their own to be reliable. What they say to eachother and what they print in their handbook has to be reliable-it is what they are fighting for-from their own mouths. To suggest that they don't even believe what they print for their own fighters is assanine. If you put two and two together you can see how alqaeda's claims of torture in guantanamo shouldn't be taken seriously, since in they have clearly stated that it is part of their mission to spread rumors of torture by US soldiers/officials.

What I'm trying to suggest is that the reports of torture grossly overrepresent what is actually going on. Sure, shit happens. some terrorists have probably been, what some would consider, tortured - I suppose abu grahb prison photos would be a good example. But to believe that the US is torturing terror suspects iin a widespread manner is rediculous, especially in guantanamo, which is under a very heavy international eye. IRC, AI, et al.

i have mentioned this parallel before, but here it seems germaine--the americans find themselves in a scenario that is very much like what the french found themselves in during the algerian war.

the use of torture. illegal detensions, the modern gulag in general follow from the fact that the american military is vertically organized and cannot figure out how to deal with horizontally organized/fragmented opposition. the assumption is that an adversary structured like the american military exists out there somewhere, and apparently if you torture enough people would till find it. this use of torture and illegal detention seems to follow from particular types of conflicts, particular organizational assymetries. in both cases, this usage was facilitated by racism and ignorance. in both situations, the central effect was the creation of the conditions that the actiosn were designed to pre-empt. (i refer mostly to iraq here)

the category "terrorist" and the arguments from bush's boy alberto gonzalez about the non-applicability of the "quaint" geneva convention to manly campaigns like bushwar in general are simply ideological screens, meant to provide a pseudo-legal face for the wholesale evacuation of even the most elementary human rights in the name of the war on terror.

al qeada operates as the bogyeman behind this move--the americans need al qeada, and al-qeada needs the americans. for each, the other is the best publicity imaginable.

i think in the main pacifier is correct: the manual is irrelevant.
it seems pretty clear that support for the war is structured to a significant extent around a blurring of iraq into the wider "logic" of bushwar.
stevo's post makes the case for this quite clearly.
but it is irrelevant.

I don't think the iraq war needs to be blurred into anything. Its clear to me, obviously not to everyone, that it is a part of the war on terror. People call the insurgents in iraq something akin to freedom fighters. That they are only fighing because we invaded them. Then the question is raised, "well, wouldn't you do the same thing if another country invaded NY?"

I can answer with a straight face - NO.

No, i would not drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded market.
No, I would not walk into a church during a funeral and blow myself up and everyone around me.

The terrorists don't do these things to fight the americans. They do them because they believe the people around them are just as evil as the US for cooperating. For them, an islamic state cannot be created by peaceful means, only through bombs and bullets. Their words, not mine.

Bollocks, the same deeds can have different motivations.
Some want an islamic rule, some simple want to get rid of the US.

A small article beside the american mainstream media:
An Anatomy of the Resistance to the American Occupation in Iraq

That is brainwashing propaganda and you take it serious?
BTW: I'm lazy, I only read the first part of the manual quickly. Which is the part about the torturing?

If only alqaeda make such claims i would agree. But AI and other organisations also make such claims.

Suicide bomber kills 10 at Sufi Muslim gathering
Fri Jun 3, 2005 11:08 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8692191
This shit happens several times a day in iraq - attacks on fellow countrymen that do not believe the same perverted version of islam the terrorists do. Its a shame and it only goes to show how low these fucks really are. They aren't fighting a war, they aren't fighting troops. They are blowing up innocent people to instill fear and terror in the hearts of the iraqis in hopes that the citizens of iraq will say 'nay' to freedom and 'yea' to a taliban-like regime. The people that want islamic rule are the SAME as the people that want the US out. There is NO difference between them.

And you don't? The asshats that fly planes into buildings and drive bombs into mosques sure as hell do.

It's clear to you that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terror"? Even though it has been established that there was no credible evidence to suggest that Iraq had a connection to the terrorism that beset the country on 9/11?

The "insurgents" in Iraq are fighting for their right to self-governance in the form of an Islamic state. I think it is clearly an example of freedom fighting; after all, we preemptively invaded a sovereign nation against international law, and proceeded to kill MANY civilians in the process - several thousand. So when they kill civilians as part of their campaign, we have no right to criticize, regardless of what you think of their preferred method of execution.

For them, desperate times call for desperate measures. I will be lambasted for this, but their methods parallel similar tactics that the Americans used in the Revolution. While our revolutionaries did not "blow themselves up", they defied conventional rules of warfare and engaged in guerilla warfare, attacking the enemy unseen. We did not have the manpower, nor the experienced soldiers necessary for the war, so we employed tactics to offset our disadvantage. Likewise, the "insurgents" could not face us openly, for they would surely be defeated. Their killing of civilians is part of their guerilla campaign, whether or not you view it as morally acceptable. We instigated this, not them.

And yes, if NY was invaded we would most assuredly retaliate against the aggressor.

the only thing that i find interesting about any theology/rhetoric of dark vs. light, sons of evil and sons of heaven, etc, etc....is why people come to beleive in them. the particulars change across cultures, situations, and times, but the outcomes are usually quite similar, including but not limited to extremist violence.

i see this rhetoric a lot. they're hard core, they're fundamentalists, they're unconvincable, they're beyond logic, they'll never stop fighting until we kill 'em... Okay. Maybe, perhaps. But the functional position of those logics is to make it easier for us to consider them a legitimate target of violence.

Which is what those words (the manual) are, flipped around...logics that provide assistance in making us a legitimate target of violence for the Arab world. Is it really more compelling to kill them all, or to figure out how to defuse these logics, to create condititions in which they are not convincing, or offer the best hope?

I tend to agree with Nietzsche's explanation for this in his argument for the revaluation of values. This sort of religious notion of "sons of evil and sons of heaven" stems from the innovation of slave morality as a weapon against the elites in society.

The moral paradigm originally consisted of good/bad - the good being the ruling elite and the bad being the impovershed, uneducated members of society. Then, with the arrival of Judeo-Christian tradition, the paradigm evolved into the dichotomy of good/evil, wherin the good were the humble and impovershed, and the evil were the oppressing "nobility". Thus, the sons of heaven became the humble and lowly - the "good" - and the sons of hell became the oppressive and "materialistic" nobles - the "evil".

Just my thoughts.

The insurgents in iraq are are very small percentage of the populace. If the majority of folks wanted an islamic state they could have voted one in. but what has happened is that a small minority wants to impose their will on the 20 million+ people in iraq, when clearly, they do not want that. This is obvious when the insurgents must result in killing just about everyone around them, anyone seen as cooperating with the new govt or coalition forces. If you were to pick out an iraqi at random and ask them what government they want, odds are it would be the one elected.

There are currently 50-60 attacks per day, few of them are suicide attacks. The suicide attacks just get more media attention.


ok, used the wrong word here. serious yes, but I don't believe everthing that Al-Kaidia Propaganda writes

I would like to know where this warped definition of terrorism comes from. Involvment in the 9/11 attack is not a prerequisite to be a terrorist. A regime that uses murder, rape, abduction, genocide etc. is a terrorist regime, even if they aren't direcly affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Just because Saddam wasn't flying a plane or funding the attacks doesn't exclude him and his supporters from being terrorists. He was able to use the means and weapons that these psychopaths employ to take over a whole country. He was a perfect example of what all the little terrorists would like to achieve. Taking him down from his throne was a message to all terrorists that we will not tolerate terrorism no matter how successful they are or how many followers they have.

So taking out Saddam was right in line with a war on terror.

the emphasis on suicide attacks in the press pool coverage of the war in iraq enables positions like stevo's to continue to function, despite the mountain of information that demonstrates that the linkages between the invasion of iraq and the "war on terror" were not worth the paper they were written on. his argument seems to depart from this "information"--suicide attacks are what "terrorists" do, al qeada is a terrorist organization, in the parlance of our times, therefore all suicide attackers are al qaeda. or like al qaeda. so the distinction does not matter.

it is not a very powerful or informative argument, in my opinion, except insofar as it accidentally reveals the source of its logic, which is the stream of infotainment the press pool relays from its daily pentagon briefings. a kind of "public diplomacy" dontcha know.

i suspect this kind of logic is important for the approximately 30% of the american population who actually support this idiotic war in iraq.

They DID vote one in; the citizens of Iraq overwhelmingly elected a Shiite Muslim government...one that will undoubtedly rule with religious influences. So while the "insurgents" represent the violent portion of this sentiment, it is quite widespread, except in the case of the Sunni minority, who now have serious representational issues in the new government.

You bring up good points frogza, except the pretenses for the War on Terror were based on the attacks on our homeland. Regime atrocities have been around for ages; hell, we've been some of their biggest supporters not very long ago. So to tell the American people that we are engaging in a new, widespread War on Terror as a result of the attacks in NYC and then use it as an excuse to fight oppressive regimes is a bit misleading, and not in-line with its original purpose.

Perhaps if the Bush Administration had given us the role of liberator from "regime terrorism" from the get-go, it wouldn't be an issue. But they didn't. They based the case for war on the false pretenses of WMD and terrorism, substantiated by warped intelligence and used as a method to further global ambitions. So you're argument is just a cop-out, in essence. You can't attempt to justify the war based on argument created after the primary goals of military action were proven to be fabricated and/or falsely justified.

You could argue that the mission to free Iraqis from regime oppression was always there, but I think that is bullshit. That line was parroted as a sort of whipped cream on the desert underneath. Given our political history with oppressive regimes - including now with our ridiculous relationship with one of the most oppressive regimes of all, that of Saudi Arabia's royal family - we clearly did not go to war to deliver the "armies of compassion".

What does it matter if its a suicide attack or just a good old timed bomb?

The method of the attack is not relevant, the targets are.

Suicide attacks just emphasize the fact that we are dealing with nutjobs.

I see your point Ustwo, but civilians are frequently casualties of war, and often deliberately. Sure, we may not view it as ethically acceptable, but they view it as one of the few viable ways to combat the enemy.

another effect of the press pool's repetition of pentagon "public diplomacy": buttressing the illusion that "terrorism" is an adequate category for describing what is happening now in iraq, of pathologizing these actions and in turn justifying the anything goes approach the bush administration has adopted. of course the americans should outsource torture, hold people indefinitely without trial, engage in huamn rights abuses on a significant scale--the Other is nuts.

you could apply the same argument about indiscriminate killing to any air raid, any artillery barrage, any battle. the fact that the people doing this indiscriminate killing wear uniforms does not make it any less indiscriminate. but in that situation, folk like ustwo are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the agents responsable for the carnage...not so when the war is being carried out by folk who do not wear uniforms.

curious, that.

The issue really isn't if the attacks are effective. Of course they are, every casualty helps their cause because its one more body the opposition to the war can point to and say 'See this is what the US caused!', but that does not change the fact that they are terrorists. Their motives are not of those seeking freedom but those seeking oppression. You don't terrorize a population which you want to see freed. You do it as an object lesson. You see THIS is what supporting the government will get you and when we take over you better bow down or we will do even worse!

I am honestly perplexed why so many people in the West are in support of terrorists. I can understand not supporting the war on principle, but that part is now over. The morality of the war is now moot, what matters is the outcome. The most immortal thing we can do at this point is withdraw our forces, it would be unforgivable. Supporting these terrorists is condemning the Iraqi people to another Saddam, and I don't think any political gain in the west (see I told you so!) is worth the sacrifice of so many.

and so here we are again, ustwo:

1. in the above (no. 21) you are but a hair's breadth away from accusing everyone who does not agree with your position on this war as traitors. why do we continually find ourselves back here?

2. you might be persuaded that the questions about the legitimacy of the war are "moot"--but that is not a shared opinion outside the world of conservative media. as as an assertion about a general state of affairs, yours is arbitrary.

i know that this is the main way that the administration has tried to deal with the many many problems their rush to an ill-considered, unjustified war has created for them.

but it is simply a preference: it changes nothing about the facts of the matter.

3. you act as though the argument stevo began the thread with concerning the use of the word terrorist to describe what is going on in iraq is not problematic, ustwo, and this 21 posts into a thread across which over half have tried to raise exactly this problem. which you have not addressed. you act as though simply repeating your premise alot of times constitutes an argument for it.
you simply have not presented a case that stevo's position is justified.
try making an actual argument that the transposition of terms is justified.

4. you also act as though opposing the war in iraq means that you support the fighters who are working against the american occupation. that is not an obvious jump. in this case, i can see where it came from in the thread--but i do not think that it is accurate or interesting to conflate the two. i can see hwo it might be functional for you, given your politics--but i do not think it describes anything beyond the outline of your politics. could you spell out your logic please?

I would like to weigh in support for the insights represented by Ustwo. I too have always been perplexed with symphathy for terrorists (and historically, for communists, fascists etc - not that I'm lumping all in together - i'm not) I sometimes feel that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water - that those who end up as "terrorist supporters" do so by virtue of having other axes to grind (with bush for example) and therefore end up doing more overall disservice than ever anticipated ...

What "terrorist supporters"?! Who here has supported terror?!
Name one!

You have to try to understand the enemy and his motivations in order to end a conflict. Labeling all terrorists as "islamic fundies" is not helpful since it is just wrong.

The enemy's motivations are laid out in the handbook I posted to begin this thread. but then you don't believe them, so I don't know what to tell you.

so here we are, back where we started again.
there is abundant information--ABUNDANT information--that militates against any such claim about the manual, stevo. they have already been mentioned several times above. start with the documentation that has emerged since the start of thei sorry war in iraq about the bush administrations initial claims that al qaeda was in iraq. they werent. move from there.

but maye this is not in fact a discussion of anything.
and i have other things to do.

It is true that these people use violent force against those in support of the new government, yet I still believe their cause is ultimately that of freedom, and not of oppression. Their goals are in the interest of driving foreign influences out, and instead propagating their own ideals. The terrorizing of civilians can be considered depraved and indecent, but to them the means justify the ends. I am not speaking on their behalf per se, but I am trying to understand the logic that drives their actions. I do believe, however, that they have a right to defend themselves against invasion and foreign influences.

Pacifier - thanks for pointing that out - my wording, albeit in quotes, was not what I had intended. The term that Ustwo had used was "sympathize" - that is more to the point. Further, I don't view terrorists as "islamic fundies", unfortunately there are too many examples ...

This rhetoric is trolling. The morality of the war is not moot. What we plan to do in Iraq and how we do it is still an open discussion. We invaded, yes. But that does not write our further responses in stone. Stay the course is not the only option (even not the only option not involving withdrawl.) You're presenting a series of false dichotomies... Not supporting the current functioning of the "war on terror" is not support of terrorism or extremist Islamacism. Not supporting the current "slow bleed" policy of Iraq re-destruction is not support of the forces American occupation has inspired to attack.

Does it follow, then that as co-conspirators with and suppliers and enablers of Saddam, even to the point of continuing a diplomatic, advisory, and ongoing material support relationship with Saddam, even after the "brutal dictator gassed 10,000 of his own people", with our gas.......that the Reagan and Bush '41 administrations, by their complicity, and your own definition, frogza, were "terrorist regimes", and that Rumsfeld was personally culpable, meeting with Saddam, and participating in arming, enabling, and advising him?

i vehemently disagree with most, if not all, of what stevo has been saying, but everybody else has been doing a pretty good job of objectively disassembling his arguments. however, i can't let this statement go. the "iraqi" government is nothing more than a puppet for ours, and a weak one at that. there is no sense of stability in iraq, and if anything our intrusion into it (under the guise of fighting terrorism, which has only increased worldwide since then) has destabilized it even more. we should remember that even the vicious dictator Hussein outright banned any form of fundamentalist extremism in his country, doing what he could to eliminate it (just as violently as we are) himself.

in any case, it simply isn't true that the the majority could vote one in. (plus, didn't you say earlier that it *is* true that the majority wants a unified state, specifically noting that terrorists are the minority?)

and......frogza, even after Rumsfeld's highly publicized Dec., 1983 visit with Saddam, the <h5>relationship and the support</h5>, the U.S. turning a blind on what you and others, today, claim as justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, after all of the initial justifications emphasized over and over by the Bush administration were revealed to be misleading, deceptive, or false,
continued, and went on and on for nearly another seven years......note the U.S. non-reaction to the 1988 reports of the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq....business as usual. Your argument today is as empty and hypocritical as any advanced by Bush or Cheney to justify the invasion of Iraq,

To present why Iraq has been so difficult (both the terrorists and its people, who are generally not thrilled about our influence), just close your eyes and imagine looking out through your living room window. You see the beautiful suburban trees, the neighbors dog barking across the street, and finally you see rumbling tanks with a foreign flag cheering "Victory" as they drive down your streets.

And that's just day one. Seeing this foreign flag holding a gun at every street corner, even though it may be for your "freedom," is still a very difficult situation to handle. And then, seeing this foreigner, whom you cannot understand, knock a few Iraqis to the ground because he felt threatened. Even seeing that just once, on *your* block, would change your outlook forever.

Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting, if the terrorists drive out all foreigners, does that mean they have "freed" the Iraqi people? And that they have ended the oppression of the Iraqis?

I can't come up with any other interpretation of your words.

anybody who causes terror is a terrorist; I have a feeling that there are some current terrorists who are acting so in response to their current reality. i am absolutely not validating their methodology, but I'm sure that there are some terrorists who would stop terrorizing upon america's departure.

Instead of your supposition, might it be possible that the aims of those administrations was to curb what they believed was the greater threat against US interests - an Iranian Islamic government inimical to the US that might be supportive of terrorist acts against "the Great Satan"? Which side might you pick, especially when many people agree that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein's era - while bloody and repressive, certainly did not seem to be one disposed towards radical Islamic revolution and, indeed, sported a decent standard of living for its citizenry?

Why must everything be black and white? I, for one, would not have relished being in Reagan or the 1st Bush's shoes. We know in hindsight that supporting Iraq against Iran was fruitless and did nothing good for the region, but I would bet that that atmosphere in the White House at that time was to try and limit Iran - a country who's revolution and taking of US hostages at our embassy still loomed large in the country's collective memory.

And once again we have someone trotting out previous US transfers of biological and chemical samples that were used in Iraqi weapons programs. I have some questions here:
1) Did the UN inspectors verify that all such stocks, and the production runs Iraqis made from those stocks, were destroyed? I believe that the first post (from 9/30/02) listing those anthrax transfers states that the UN was UNABLE to verify total destruction. It also stated that botulinum toxin was unaccounted for. That makes me nervous.

2) Where did all of this stuff go? WAS it destroyed? If so - why no records for some items? That makes me nervous.

3) This is the $64,000 Question: If you were responsible for one HELLUVA big mess, wouldn't you be responsible for cleaning it up? My answer to this question is YES. We - the UNITED STATES - had a hand in propping up and supplying Hussein, so WE have a responsibility to clean up our mess.

I won't argue that - in the act of cleaning up our one mess - we've created quite another one. I can only hope that the country has the fortitude to stay in Iraq until they are able to do the day-to-day stuff on their own. And yes - I know that US foreign policy is responsible for other major messes around the globe. Sorry - I guess the blunders that have the most effect on US economic interests get the grease.

MoonDog, I have shown you the info contained in the next quote box before, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=37

I am almost as tired of posting the same links and info again and again, as I am reading posts that claim, over and over, that the U.S. is vindicated for invading Iraq because the U.S. eliminated a "brutal dictator who gassed his own people".
When I repeatedly offer references to the thoroughly documented and overwhelming evidence that the U.S. administrations of Reagan and Bush '41, not only armed, advised and supported the same "brutal dictator", even during and after the time that he "gassed his own people", the response from you and others is that supporting Saddam in the 80's was the result of supporting the less objectionable of the two evil regimes of Iraq and Iran.

The problem with your argument is that The Reagan/Rumsfeld and Bush '41/Cheney administrations did not practice the policy you explain, and similarly to today, they did not fully or clearly explain the nuances, and contradictions of their Iraq and Iran policies to the American people, and not unlike the situation today, they appeared to operate in secrecy, hypocrisy, illegality, and with a cynical disregard for human rights.
MoonDog, as far as undiscovered stockpiles of chemical/bio WMD in Iraq, if I were you, I would not be any more nervous about them than Reagan and Rumsfeld and the CIA seemed to be in the 1980's when they were selling the seedstocks for these weapons to Saddam, and the equipment, as well as technical support to make and deploy them, or as WH press secretary McClellan seemed to be about WMD a few months ago:

No argument there. The part I couldn't fathom was

I can't follow the logic of calling people who indiscriminately blow up children "freedom fighters," and Saddam's regime certainly seemed oppressive.

As does pretty much every theocracy I can think of.

You know, I REALLY wish every time I stated an opinion it wasn't called a troll by someone who didn't agree with it. Its how I feel buddy, based on some of the stuff host and roachboy post its very mild opinion. :|

Ever wonder why conservatives just give up on the politics board? Take a guess.

clarification
 

Originally Posted by Ustwo
I am honestly perplexed why so many people in the West are in support of terroriststhis is the troll. I can understand not supporting the war on principle, but that part is now over. The morality of the war is now moot, what matters is the outcome. The most immortal thing we can do at this point is withdraw our forces, it would be unforgivable. Supporting these terrorists is condemning the Iraqi people to another Saddam, and I don't think any political gain in the west (see I told you so!) is worth the sacrifice of so many.

You mean people in the west don't support the terrorists in Iraq?

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1738080.php

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/200...ml?id=np12.htm
So just how was that a troll again?

Thank you, Tecoyah. It is my sincere wish to keep the politics forum alive with discourse that is sincerely open to opposing views.

Cheap shot Ustwo, as usual. Nice choice of publication excerpts for a guy that will not read anything from a "suspect" publisher.

Eh, it matters not. I do wonder how you find the time to be here 24/7, with your very busy professional obligations. What is that you do?

Luckily, the nutjobs that wrote that, or agree with it, are a small minority. Most people that oppose the US on this issue aren't happy when US/UK troops are killed. They want the troops out, after all.

Interesting bit of info:

Iraqi officials say that all of the suicide bombers have been foreigners. Not a single Iraqi has blown himself up. This leads me to the following:

Iraqi "freedom fighters" are made up of
a) angry Sunnis/Ba'athists, who want their power back. They don't care about freeing the Iraqis as a whole.
b) Foreign nutjobs/terrorists who want to kill infidels. They don't care about freeing the Iraqi's, they're just another group that wants to control them.
c) criminals who want to maintain the current insecurity, so that they may profit. Not interested in freeing the Iraqis at all.
d) others who are indeed fighting the foreign oppressors in order to bring freedom to their people.

Now, does anyone care to give me their estimate of the relative size of group D? I bet it's pretty damn small, compared to the other three groups.

What you have to remember: in Islamic culture, the nation as a whole isn't important. The tribe is important, and the Islamic world as a whole is important. Remember that when you're trying to compare the sitation to people invading the US.

I agree they are a small minority, but we are still talking about millions of people. Take a look at the signs at a war protest or an anti-Bush rally. Even wanting the troops out is in indirect support of the terrorists. What do you think would happen if we just pulled out tomarrow? Reguardless of it being right or wrong, we made the mess, we have to clean it up.

I agree with your assesment.

Yes this is part of the problem. After the invasion I was reading the Arab press quite a lot and their reaction to it was as if they themselves were invaded and had lost as baddly as Saddam had. They honestly seemed to believe Bagdad Bob, and they were angry that they had been lied to. Even though they didn't 'like' Saddam they admired him for the percieved streangth of Iraq, and when that was brushed aside like a mosquito, it made them all feel impotent.

You are quite free to state that you think that the war deserves American support, and explain why. It is not trolling to explain why you think Iraq is critical to the War on Terror, or whatever. I will note any disagreement i have with such statements with respect for your right to express that opinion.

That particular quote, as Tecoyah notes, accuses members of this board of treasonous sentiments. As such, i think i am with in my rights to state that i hold it to be trolling. None of the quotes you cite in clarification come from this community.

Don't forget, the people have been fighting back. Locals (shopkeepers etc) got sick and tired of the chaos and instability caused by the "bad apples" (not all Iraqis are bad) and fought back. Does anyone remember a few weeks back, when these shopkeepers sucessfully fought off a bunch of "insurgents"? I think there was a thread on that somwhere around here.

I think the majority of Iraqis just want to have the water running, the power on, schools to go to, open their stores and stay open without fear of insurgent activity, and the resulting "lockdown" and "sweeps" by US troops. IMO, both have bad results.

The key is stablizing the damn place. We need more troops and committment to actually "fixing" the place instead of this dragging of feet and passing the buck. Putting an inexperienced, untrained local police and armed forces out in the field is disastrous. (this would follow your "right or wrong, we made the mess, we have to clean it up" which I agree with).

Anyways, people are tired of having their schools, shops, what-have-you blown up by the insurgents and fed up with the shakedown by US troops.

A veteran from Iraq came to our school last week and gave a powerpoint presentation in our class. He said the reason why schools etc were being targeted was because they were built by coalition (mostly US) troops, contracters etc. So it's like a bad cycle. If anyone's interested, we can open up another thread and I can share with you what this guy talked about. On a side note, the Syrian Ambassador came to speak to our class a few days ago. Very interesting stuff he had to say. We can open a thread on that too. The Israeli Foreign Minister is supposed to come next week. /end tangent

Also, even our good intentions, which some Iraqis no doubt "appreciate" to a certain extent, would still prefer all the foreign elements (not just Western" leave their country. Iraq has had a bad history of foreign occupations and meddling since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. You can't really blame them for not trusting us. But on the other hand, they (some) want us there as a stabilizing presence (which makes sense too). Makes for a tense and uneasy situation.

Best solution (which I belive we're trying to do), stabilize the place, get their institutions and security apparatus in place and get the hell out ASAP (easier said than done of course).

For those who are interested. Read:

"Threatening Storm", Kenneth Pollack - ex-deputy CIA Director who advised about the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. He provides excellent background about the region and great analysis. This guy has degrees from MIT and Harvard and is currently at the Brookings Institute (I think) or is it the Saban center for Near East Studies.

"Inventing Iraq" - Toby Dodge - explains alot of the British experience and consequences. Lends insight to the fractious state of Iraq. It also talks about the whole Islamic state versus tribal loyalty thing too.

"U.S. Policy in Post-Saddam Iraq: Lessons from the British Experience" - Michale Eisenstadt & Eric Mathewson - This book is awesome. It is pretty short but it is a collection of papers focusing on comparing/contrasting the current US experience in Iraq with the British.

All these books were written by people of high credentials: academics, think-tanks, military and the like. I highly suggest reading these. They are written in a user friendly format. Most of these people have first hand experience in what went on/goes on in makiing the decisions and stuff regarding Iraq.

I think that it would save lives of American military and Iraqi civilians if we
"pulled out "tomorrow". The track record of the Bush administration is too similar to Baghdad Bob's for my liking, when it comes to accurate disclosure of the military situation in Iraq. Rumsfeld claims in a briefing linked below that trained Iraqi security forces now number 165,000. I advocate declaring "mission accomplshed", one more time, and then pull out.

Ustwo, earlier in this thread, I presented a well documented argument that details the complicity, support, and by the continuing relationship, (with no protest from the executive branch of the infamous gassing of the Kurds), the tacit approval of Saddam's regime by the Reagan and the Bush '41 administrations, until late 1990.
See:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=30

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=32

The argument that Saddam was supported by the U.S. for reasons having to do with a strategy of supporting Iraq to blunt the larger threat of Iran, rings hollow and empty when one counts the anti-tank missles delivered at the direction of U.S. to Iran during the same period, in direct contravention of the President's publicly stated prohibition of negotiating or supporting terrorist states, and Iran in particular, and in spite of vehement advice to desist by close advisors to President Reagan. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...e/index_5.html A reader can also observe in the timeline at the above link that other military support was provided by the U.S. to Iran in it's war with Iraq at the same time that the policy of aiding Saddam was justified as a way to counter Iran!

So now, "we have to clean it up", in your words. This sounds like the last refuge of justification for the continued occupation of a country that the administration declared so many times, posed an imminent danger to the U.S., and to it's own neighbors because of it's WMD programs. We were also told by President Bush and officials of his government that we were fignting them in Iraq, so that we wouldn't have to fight them here. This seems to be as dubious a claim as all of the others that turned out to be misleading and unreliable. Our own military provides us in it's briefings with little or no evidence that they are engaging "foreign fighters" in any signifigant or measurable numbers:
Above are three recent DOD briefings where several high ranking generals and Rumsfeld himself offer little in the way of admissions or facts to support a contention that the U.S. is engaged in a fight against "foreign fighters" in any signifigant numbers. 26 months into this occupation, Rumsfeld's comments in the third segment are most disingenuous; acting as if it just occurred to military intelligence to ascertain if the armed opposition in Iraq "Are they foreign fighters, Jihadist types?"

In the June 3rd news report, the Iraqi interior minister passes along firgures of 12,000 Iraqi civilian dead, in the last 18 months,casualties of the continuing
insurgency.

Here's the "news" from the other country that the U.S. has recently liberated, Afghanistan. The U.S. military presence there pre-dates Iraq by more than a year. Will another year of 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq bring this kind of progress?
Ustwo, 3-1/2 years after intiating military action in Afghanistan, our own State Dept. still does not deem that country's capital, specifically, the presumed secure areas where the U.S. maintains it's diplomatic mission, to be safe enough to permit the family members of diplomats to reside with them.
Unofficial travel to any part of Afghanistan (even to Kabul), by U.S. citizens is still deemed from a personal security standpoint, to be out of the question.

Is this the picture of present day Afghanistan that you, or most Americans, have planted in your head, as a result of listening to Bush admin. pronouncements of U.S. success and improvements there, at least in the capital, Kabul?

It cannot be demonstrated that the Bush administration can or will accurately disclose to the American people why we invaded Iraq, why we are there now in a larger military presence than during the invasion, or even, tell us whether we are battling foreign fighters in any signifigant numbers. I've documented the seldom discussed fact that the "liberation" of Afghanistan is vastly overrated.

I want our troops out of Iraq now, Ustwo, and in saying that, I am not supporting "terrorists". I am reacting to the reality that our U.S. administration has lost the trust of the small portion of it's citizenry that is actually informed about the circumstances of the debacles resulting from our post 9/11 military "adventures" in Afghansitan and in Iraq.

You are free to counter the details that I offer on this thread, point by point.
I do not see you doing that.

Just one question here: when the inevitable civil war breaks out in Iraq, will you accept your responsibility?

IMO, pulling out now is the WORST the US could do. The overly used phrase "the terrorists will win" most certainly applies here, at least in the eyes of their supporters. The end result will be even more suffering, and the destruction of what little hope and freedom the Iraqis have.

(FYI, I would prefer a UN peace-keeping operation instead of the current US-led force. But that's not gonna happen.)

I think that that thinking is what lead to the mass slaughter of many South Vietnamese tribes after we left. I think that thinking is what caused the massacres of the tribes in Iraq following the infandata uprising after we left Saddam in power in the first place. I think that your suppor of pulling out tomarrow is severely lacking historical proof and flawed.

Agreed. Would I fight to save my country if I thought it was in jeopardy? Absolutely! Would I take out Americans left and right to do it? Not a chance! The fundamental problem with fundamentalists is that they seem to overlook (or never got to) the bigger picture.

My apologies, Ustwo. It was, indeed, uncalled for.

I would be very interested in both of these.

i won't go so far as Ustwo and say that many in the West are in support of the terrorists... but i think it's quite obvious that many in the West aren't willing to support themselves.

Support is not a black and white word in terms of meaning.

I don't think any but a lunatic fringe would be giving any support like money, arms, info, or physical support allowing the terrorists to be better terrorists.

I do think many are quite happy that we are taking casualties and think the terrorists cause is legitimate. This doesn't include the group of indirect supporters who want our troops out regardless of the effect on the Iraqi people. It becomes a situation of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

None of your responses to my last post attempts to debate, refute, or counter any of the information that I used to back my point that it is time for our military to withdraw from Iraq.

How is it that Rumsfeld, who maintained that a U.S. force level of about 140,000 U.S. troops was adequate, even though there were still not enough troops to secure the six mile stretch of road to Baghdad airport, cannot now justify withdrawing any of them, when he states this:
The U.S. military will pull out of Iraq, eventually, and judging by what this U.S. executive and military/intelligence leadership has accomplished so far, the U.S. will pull out after a far greater number of non-combatants and U.S. troops are killed or wounded, and with the same, or possibly worse dismal set of results for the efforts, than if the troop pullout were to begin tomorrow.

The crux of the problem, is that, in addition to being untruthful and incompetent, the folks running our government and our military refuse to take the advice of anyone with an informed opinion, and the possibility of offers of better solutions, that disagrees with them, the discrediting of General Shinseki by Wolfowitz, et al, being the best example of this.

The vehement refusal of some participants here to consider and to react to the details and history of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the purpose of adjusting their opinions in reaction to the progression of circumstances of the military presences in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not all that different from the description of the process described in the Downing Street memo, of the "Bush administration fixing the facts to match the policy".

Here is a fresh assessment of what some of you clamor for more of, in large part because you are incapable of even considering what you now regard as unthinkable, withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq without anyone believing that the "mission" has been accomplished. I need not worry that I will have to take some sort of responsibility as Dragonlich asks me to, for the "breakout of the inevitable civil war in Iraq". It is already a reality, although Bush and Rumsfeld will never tell you that, because then others would demand that they assume responsibility for triggering it.

I know that this report is from Newsweek, the magazine that published the true story of Koran desecration by U.S. jailers at Gitmo, but just muddled the now admitted details of how human excrement came to taint the muslim holy books. Consider that the reporter has been in Iraq for two years, far removed from the editorial decisions of the Koran story, and how his initial optimism was ground down during his time frame, by a series of missed U.S. opportunities and leadership, command, and training failures.
If ever there was a "no confidence" vote regarding the leadership of a military and the formulation and implementation of policy that the military is ordered to follow, the above article makes the case. I cannot believe that the Bush administration can continue to be trusted with the responsibility of occupying and maintaining order in Iraq, or of overseeing U.S. foreign policy and commanding and directing the U.S. military. It must take huge volumes of denial and "fixing of facts to make the catstrophe that is Iraq look in anyway positive, or defensible". This is a descritpion of a total failure of policy and of military administration.

Please, if you have documentation from reliable sources to counter the electrical production figures, or of the performance of the U.S. military regarding relations with the Iraqi people today, and of improvements in the state of security there, post it. Posting good news to counter the sober assessments contained in my posts would do more to bolster your arguments than the content currently offered in your posts.

The Reagan and Bush '41 administrations, with the help of first, Rumsfeld, and then under the DOD oversight of Cheney, apparently did just what you are describing, with reference to Saddam and his terrorist activities, starting a war of aggression against his neighbor, Iran, and then gassing his own people, with U.S. bio weapons stocks, advice, technical support, and even with the U.S. supplied crop dusting helicopters to deliver the biological agents to the skies over at least one Kurdish village.

Did Reagan qualify for your "lunatic fringe" catagory when he signed the secret order to supply the terrorist government of Iran with anti-tank missles and other military hardware, repeatedly, while simultaneously supporting Saddam? How about the secret and, contrarty to the stated policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, effort to curry favor with Iran by secretly supplying it's military with anti-tank weapons in the hope that it would influence Iran to help free American hostages held by factions allied with the Iranian government. Isn't a blanket policy to refuse to negotiate with terrorists necessary in order to discourage further acts of terrorism that might otherwise be encouraged if terrorists observe that their acts will influence concessions?

Can you consider that there is a legitmate reason to believe that the Bush administration never actually held a position that the "liberation of the Iraqi people", was a goal, in and of itself, was worth the expense of the life of even one American soldier, let alone, 1660 lives and ten thousand seriously wounded, a weakening of U.S. ability to attract and maintain the best recruits and non-com officers in it's ranks?

Can you read the above report by Newsweek's Baghdad Bureau chief on the state of things in Iraq, and not consider that labelling objectors to U.S. military policy in Iraq as possible terrorist "sympathizers or enablers, especially when viewed alongside the history of statements and actions of U.S. administrations of the past 25 years, may not be the most compelling or effective ways to counter my arguments and conclusions?

This post is especially revealing. What better evidence than an optimist-turned-pessimist editor with two years of on-the-ground experience in Iraq? <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1804217#post1804217">Host's post</a>

Host makes a very good point. In addition, American funding of the mujihadeen (including Bin Laden) under the Reagan administration makes current claims of purity suspect. Bush now funds Uzbekistan, which under "President" Karimov operates one of the most despotic regimes in modern times. Indeed, it takes a special kind of person to fund a terrorist or despot in the search for peace or order.

Unfortunatly, George Bush is such a person.

That's probably why he supports the government of North-Korea, Iran, Belarus, and tons of other despotisms. And that's probably why he openly disapproves of Karimov's actions.

Politics isn't black and white...

That wasn't my point.

Slapping Karimov on the wrist while we still provide military support for his regime is about useless in terms of providing any significant pressure to change. So don't bother saying that we've done anything moral in the situation there. And despite long term violations of human rights, Bush only said anything when international media covered the massacres. Real stand up forgien policy that is. I think it's called "the hand caught in the proverbial cookie jar of supporting a brutal dicator who couldn't keep the massacres quiet enough."

In the war to bring down one evil, we may be tempted to accept another. sometimes, this is an unavoidable consequence of the situation we find ourselves in. but the real problem is the whitewash, the idea that America stands for freedom, period. No, we stand for freedom where it's handy for us to do so. For Uzbeks, we'd rather have their air space clearances so we can fight in Afganistan, than for them to be free of a ruthless and merciless dictator. Bush has made a series of pyhrric choices in this war on terror, and i think it is an indication of his Ahabian obession, and ability to ignore the human costs of our forgien policy.