CM-Gee, I guess that makes it fine what Maher said! Thanks for clearing that up, CM.
I’m sorry! I had Maher all wrong- I guess I’ll watch the 9-11 video again and picture a relative of mine on one of the planes that crashed into the towers. And I’ll feel much, much better about it because I’ll just tell myself, “Well, at least the terrorists who hijacked that plane and slit the throat of my mother or father on that plane and then killed everyone by crashing the plane did it in front of other people, not from far away. At least they’re not cowards....”
He said what he said, but it hardly makes him an Al-Qaeda fan.
Um, it was Bush that told us that Bin Laden didn’t matter anymore.
Saying that Clinton or Maher are Al Qaeda supporters is patently stupid.
Two noble guys they are, just like all the Krauts who proclaimed their RAF was a necessary evil, you know, to keep the right-wingers from ever getting too cocky again, and to showcase real freedom of prole thought and deed, which is why they voted green. Once voted into office Joschka Fischer got fat, lazy, started wearing a suit, became rather benign, and never threw another rock at any bastard pig Nazi cop to save the ozone. He became the Establishment. But the Krauts continued to evolve by voting for a broad, Merkel.
The only way for the US to save some face in this world would be to vote for a woman too - Hillary.
And yeah, Bin Laden doesn’t matter anymore because he’s not screaming into the cameras like freak monkey Chavez, igniting nukes lik Pingpong, or incessantly wanking off in pubic like Professor Iran, much less blowing up his own people.
This would be a wonderful argument if it weren’t for the somewhat unfortunate fact that al-Qaida has only had a significant presence in Iraq AFTER we invaded. There’s also the other unfortunate fact that the invasion of Iraq has actually driven more people to join al-Qaida. So once again I ask you, how the hell did invading Iraq have anything to do with solving the problem of al-Qaida and Bin Laden. Bin Laden isn’t even in Iraq; he’s probably somewhere in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Not to be contrary, but Al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam gave all sorts of aid to terrorists. He allowed training camps. He paid out rewards to families of terrorists. Hell, he even had Zarqawi treated after that s.o.b. got his leg blown off! Bin Laden may not have hung out there, but to say that there was no connection is stupid.
This would be a wonderful argument if it weren’t for the somewhat unfortunate fact that al-Qaida has only had a significant presence in Iraq AFTER we invaded. There’s also the other unfortunate fact that the invasion of Iraq has actually driven more people to join al-Qaida. So once again I ask you, how the hell did invading Iraq have anything to do with solving the problem of al-Qaida and Bin Laden. Bin Laden isn’t even in Iraq; he’s probably somewhere in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Not to be contrary, but Al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam gave all sorts of aid to terrorists. He allowed training camps. He paid out rewards to families of terrorists. Hell, he even had Zarqawi treated after that s.o.b. got his leg blown off! Bin Laden may not have hung out there, but to say that there was no connection is stupid.
It doesn’t appear to be contrary to what Deus is saying because he didn’t say there was “no connection”.
Saddam gave all sorts of aid to terrorists. He allowed training camps. He paid out rewards to families of terrorists.
Yes, but primarily those terrorists weren’t al-Qaida. If I remember correctly, Saddam’s ‘rewards’ were paid out to families of Palestinian terrorists who blew themselves up against Israel. Whether there is a connection between these groups and al-Qaida is dubious at best even now, and pre-2001 the connection is even less likely. Al-Qaida has always aimed to strike America, rather than Israel, presumably in the belief that destroying America will result in the collapse of Israel.
This is what I object to in the War on Terror - this idea that there is somehow some sort of connection between every little tinpot Jihadi or Arab nationalist, or indeed, any Muslim that does something illegal. I’m sure that yes, al-Qaida probably has its fingers in a lot of pies but it doesn’t mean there’s some vast confederacy of terrorist groups all in contact with Bin Laden or even al-Qaida at all. It’s a bit like saying the IRA and ETA are pretty much the same because they’re Catholics involved in blowing up other people.
Again, the question is how did invading Iraq do anything to reduce the risk posed by al-Qaida and Bin Laden? Removing Saddam’s terrorist support didn’t harm al-Qaida at all - indeed I suspect it didn’t even really affect terrorism amongst Palestinians either, although I suppose you could argue that because Palestinian suicide bombers were less likely to get funded, Hamas rose to prominence by being the main financial backer of such attacks.
Once again, I point to how terrorist attacks by al-Qaida specifically on Western targets has increased since invading Iraq and how the invasion of Iraq has led to more people joining al-Qaida or other terrorist groups intent on blowing up other people. Any meaningful connection between Iraq and the War on Terror as far as the West is concerned is very much a retroactive connection - Iraq has become a feature of the War on Terror because we invaded, rather than the accepted narrative that it was other way around.
Yes, but primarily those terrorists weren’t al-Qaida. If I remember correctly, Saddam’s ‘rewards’ were paid out to families of Palestinian terrorists who blew themselves up against Israel.
Are you trying to argue that only Al-Qaeda should be valid targets for the WOT? As far as I’m concerned, one terrorist is just as deserving of death as the next one.
But if you want to sell the idea as a War On Terror, you’ve got to group them all together under one umbrella. Grand speeches all have to be vague etc.
The problem is that all terrorists are then treated the same, when they are considerably different.
It also means that regional/local skirmishes can be claimed to be part of the same. So Russia/China/whoever can start cracking down on separatists/protestors under the same banner.
Once you make everything vague, everything that follows is just as cloudy.
Are you trying to argue that only Al-Qaeda should be valid targets for the WOT?
I would argue that has been precisely the doctrine by which the War on Terror has been fought. The ‘War on Terror’ isn’t a ‘war on terrorism’ - it’s a war on a particular brand of Islamic fundamentalism that isn’t even common to all terrorist groups comprising of Muslims.
If this really was a war on terror, as opposed to a war on terrorists that pose a particular threat to the mainland US, where are the American troops in Belfast clearing out the IRA and UDA? Where are the American troops in Zaragoza clearing out ETA? Where are the American troops in Grozny defeating the Chechens? Where are the American troops operating across the Armenian/Azeri border? Where are the American troops in the Gaza Strip?
Do not for one second delude yourself into believing the war on terror is indeed some all-encompassing war on terrorists. I’m right with you when you say one terrorist is as deserving of death as the other. But this has NEVER been how the War on Terror has been sold. The US invaded Afghanistan to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. The US invaded Iraq because of Saddam developing WMD and the fear that he would give them to al-Qaida. Now we’ve just seen the US launch airstrikes in Somalia, with the intention of eliminating a key al-Qaida bomber who is responsible for attacks on American embassies and warships.
The War on Terror is NOT a war on terrorism. If it was then there are far more pressing terrorist concerns that are largely being ignored by the US right now. Arguably I would say Israel is having to deal with a far more significant terrorist threat from both Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet American efforts to stabilise the region aren’t considered part of the ‘War on Terror’, it’s part of the ‘Middle East Peace Process’.
The War on Terror is a war against al-Qaida and its affiliated groups which pose a threat to the United States. There is nothing wrong with that war aim either. But that’s its remit - it is not a war against terrorism and the Bush administration has deliberately and quite rightly ensured that it has never been characterised as such. The invasion of Iraq was a remarkably poor choice of target both in terms of the official aims of the WoT and the aims perceived by the general public. As part of the WoT it was a mistake because it has significantly amplified the direct terror threat to al-Qaida. As part of some noble war on terrorism, it was a mistake because there is now considerably more terror and fighting in Iraq than there was prior to the invasion.
“We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the ‘On to Berlin’ bravado with which French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict ... For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world ...
“The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon… We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before.”
“The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”
