Tide Turning on al-Qa'eda In Iraq?

Haha so much for your enemies enemy being your friend.

But hey look at the bright side, now we dont have to look as much to find the enemy because theyll be fighting each other . Maybe this'll work to our advantage for once.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Keep driving that wedge it will be the downfall of your Nation. How can we know how many people would have lived or died under Saddam do we have a machine that can look into alternate realities to compare? lol I like how as more and more people are turning against the war you guys on the right side of the tracks seem to be getting more and more desperate, grasping at straws and such.

Not at all , facts are facts.

People were starving and dieing under the sanctions and only the US and UK were being blamed for that, not the UN.

Saddam was getting around the sanctions with the oil for food money.

How many? Well I don't know but it was thought to be many,


Ms Albright ordains that the UN sanctions must continue. This despite their failure and human cost, as determined by UNICEF to be the death of some 5,000 children under five years of age each month, and that excludes teenagers, adults and the elderly also dying unnecessarily under the UN embargo. One can only assume that she calls for its continuation to meet American ambitions for suppression of Iraq and control of the Middle East.

UN Sanctions Against Iraq Only Serve US Ambition


So it would seem to me to be a heck of a lot more than the deaths in the years since the invasion.

Is myopia one-sided perception by one’s own choice or by adhering to a strict diet of propaganda via segmented news?



August 12, 2005-General Fontaine

We have seen an increase in the use of IEDs on our convoys. And our main threat is the IED for the logistics convoys coming from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey and in going to the Baghdad area. So the increase has been to about 30 a week.

Q: (Off mike) -- briefly follow up, you mentioned that you're at 30 IED attacks on a weekly basis. Could you give a comparison to what that level was previously?

Gen. Fontaine: Yes, sir. It's about a hundred percent increase from last year.

Q- This week Secretary Rumsfeld accused Iran of smuggling weapons into Iraq. Do you have any information about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or the Hezbollah in supporting the insurgency and providing this kind of IEDs?

Gen. Fontaine: To be honest with you, no, I don't.

August 9 2005-Rumsfeld:

It is true that weapons, clearly, unambiguously from Iran have been found in Iraq.

August 5, 2005-Maj. Gen Dutton BRM

We have down here between 14 and 18 security incidents per week. The Shi'a insurgency remains subdued whilst Muqtada al-Sadr pursues the political route to power.

However, there are rogue elements who will continue to perpetrate acts of violence throughout the AO, largely out of frustration. There will also continue to be inter- and intra-tribal fighting in the Basra province as well as other acts of political and sectarian assassination and public disorder; the latter, the disorder, often caused by annoyance over the lack of a reliable electricity and water supply.

Q- General, you speak of the relatively benign atmosphere in the region, and you say between 14 and 18 incidents a week, generally. How does that compare with, say, a month ago and six months ago? In other words, albeit benign, is it increasing?

MAJ. GEN. DUTTON: No, it's been pretty static. I've only been here for two months, but of course, I've been taking a close interest in what's going on here for a lot longer than that, and we have all the statistics available.

I would say it's been pretty static.

Q General, to what extent and in what ways are you seeing harmful or, for that matter, helpful Iranian involvement in southeastern Iraq?

MAJ. GEN. DUTTON: Well, the question of Iranian involvement is always a difficult one, because there's a lot of speculation about it and not many facts.

August 3,2005

DI RITA (dasd)- We have seen instances where Iraqi security forces have been involved in alleged abuses of detainees. It's something we take seriously and we're concerned about. It's one of the things -- I mentioned these task forces that Ambassador Khalilzad has set up. One of them that he has set up with the Iraqi government is to manage through the transition of detainees to the Iraqis, because we're holding quite a number of Iraqi detainees right now -- the coalition is. We are involved in training Iraqi security forces, including, to some extent, training for the purposes of detention.



It is not by chance that some of you have no clue what is going on:

GEN. HAM: We have seen over the past few months a general decline in the number of improvised explosive attacks; in volume they've decreased, but the lethality has remained very, very high. We are seeing larger amounts of explosives.


Some of you obviously just listen to the one-sided good news stations or talk yourselves in fanciful claims of the insurgency losing steam.

Is it that:

The IED attacks are twice what they were last year, or static?
The Iranians are pouring in aid or not?
The Insurgents are foreigners or the Iraqis being held in jail are there for jaywalking?

I agree with John bull 1
How is this good news?
All this indicates is that Iraq is on the cusp of civil war.

Originally posted by boogymanHow is this good news?All this indicates is that Iraq is on the cusp of civil war.

Here is your answer , read this mans posts in this thread. It will open your eyes.

MajorCee

Of course your going to agree with John Bull 1 or anyone else that does not see this for what it is, boogyman.

I mean gee, when reviewing your post history, one can definately see that you are against this war and against anything good coming out of Iraq.
Anything new here, especially enlight of what you have just mentioned above? Yeah, I guess like John Bull 1 and others, you would much rather side with the bad propaganda coming out of Iraq than side and accept the good propaganda coming out. I mean after all, propaganda is simply propaganda, just depends on which version you opt to go with, right?

What you, as with others, are purposely ignoring, downplaying, and simply dismissing as signs of something other than what is, is that the Iraqi people themselves, though despite having dispute and difference between themselves, are growing increasingly weary of those foreign fighters entering their country--Iraq-- and killing Iraqis just for the sport of their own political purposes or that of their governments purposes, such as Syria, and Iran. What is being indicated is that the Iraqi people are getting sick and tired of Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda's mumbo-jumbo and Islamic hypocritical fundamentalist propaganda, hence the Iraqis taking up the fight against Al-Qaeda and those infiltrating foreign fighters, etc.






seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
hence the Iraqis taking up the fight against Al-Qaeda and those infiltrating foreign fighters, etc.
seekerof

Which according to the link I posted above is EXACTLY to plan.

Give me a "B"

Give me a "U"

Give me an "S"

Give me an "H"

Just thought i'd come join your delicious party

What would be nice is if you would add some thing of material to that discussion, instead of the typical anti-Bush sarcasm, dgtempe.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof anti-Bush sarcasm, dgtempe.

seekerof

Is that what that was? sarcasm? Dang, I thought we had converted her from the dark side.

I never said this was propaganda and I am not ignoring it.
I however disagree with your interpretation of it

Yes they don't like the foreign fighters granted.
This however does not change the fact that they still don't like us either.
A fact you seem to be glossing over.

Yes the secular sunni insurgents have issues with the foreign wackos.
This however doesnt change the fact that a large portion of the Iraqi population has significant issues with the current Iraqi government. The fact that they are a minority is irrelevant we're still talking about millions of people with a gripe against America and a government they feel does not represent their interests.

This is news but it's not the good news you make it out to be for the simple fact that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are of not of foreign origin. Look at it this way Black supremacists hate White Supremacists and vice versa. As much as they hate each other though they hate the government even more and no matter how much they hate each other they will still focus the brunt of their aggression against their main target.

You act like our fight here is solely with foreign infiltrators in Iraq when that is obviously not the case. If it were the Sunni insurgents wouldnt be attacking American soldiers. Basically what your applauding is that the situation in Iraq has gotten even more unstable as the number of parties fighting has increased once again.

Lets take a short stock of the factions involved....
Militant secular Sunnis
Foreign Suicidal Jihadis
Ambitious Secession minded Kurds
Religious Fundamentalist Shiites
The Iraqi government
The US
and all the sensible Iraqis in the middle getting killed.

I don't know about you but this sounds like the beginings of civil war to me.

Originally posted by boogyman
Lets take a short stock of the factions involved....
Militant secular Sunnis
Foreign Suicidal Jihadis
Ambitious Secession minded Kurds
Religious Fundamentalist Shiites
The Iraqi government
The US
and all the sensible Iraqis in the middle getting killed.

I don't know about you but this sounds like the beginings of civil war to me.

Have you read MajorCee remarks? It sounds plausible that is the PLAN. check it out.

So your saying it was America's plan to instigate civil war in Iraq?
Because that was the jist of what your link said.
Wow and all this time I thought we invaded Iraq to spread democracy to the Iraqis.

.
This is the state of affairs in Afghanistan that let to the takeover by the Taliban. A chaotic infighting for control by a number of factions.

How exactly is this useful to either Iraq or the United States?

War Hawks seem happy to have turned a stable nation into a chaotic war zone.

Al Qaeda hates us for being stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Now Iraqis hate us for invading their nation and the way they have been treated and regarded by the US.

Now we have 2 groups that hate us instead of the original one.

This is a negative product of the Iraq invasion.

Is the American public buying the pro-war BS?

You sound like car dealers.

Its WMDs!
ok not wmds
Its Democracy!
ok no democracy so far

Well at least now we have someone fighting Al Qaeda besides us!

and just how long before they both have their sights on the US?

You war hawks love terrorism and war so much you will sell it at any price.

I can only hope America is becoming wise enough not to buy it.
.

.
dgtempe,

Bush is just a means to an end.
The real chant is:

Give me a T
Give me an E
Give me an R
Give me another R
Give me an O
Give me an R
Give me an I
Give me an S
Give me an M

and the ever popular:

Give me a W
Give me an A
Give me an R

Please just let me kill someone bloody and brutal so i can feel like a man.
.

Given the statements by American and British officials of this war which I posted above, I want to know how and why some of you still:



Come to conclude that foreigners are responsible for the problems in Iraq;

How you explain the conflicting accounts of Iranian insurgents;

How you explain Iraqis residing in the Iraqi jails?

Anyone care to make an attempt at an answer supported by sterling sources, where the Brits and Americans do not contradict themselves or each other?

I do believe the call once more is to deny ignorance. I anxiously await same.

Originally posted by boogymanSo your saying it was America's plan to instigate civil war in Iraq?Because that was the jist of what your link said.Wow and all this time I thought we invaded Iraq to spread democracy to the Iraqis.

Well that is what it said but it was much deeper and if the civil war is between those that accept terrorism and those that don't and want freedom then I guess so.

Remember it is US national security we are taking about too.

Originally posted by boogyman
So your saying it was America's plan to instigate civil war in Iraq?Because that was the jist of what your link said.Wow and all this time I thought we invaded Iraq to spread democracy to the Iraqis.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well that is what it said but it was much deeper and if the civil war is between those that accept terrorism and those that don't and want freedom then I guess so.

Remember it is US national security we are taking about too.

But what about those that see themselves as "Freedom Fighters"?

Many of the "Iraqi Insurgents" see themselves as fighting a growing thrat of U.S. imperialism throughout the Middle East. The continued presence of such forces and bases will only result in helping terrorism to expand and grow and in fact the way in which we are handling Iraq is only helping them.

Everytime another U.S. bomb goes off and accidently kills a bystander, it helps to bring more terrorists into their ranks. Gitmo, et al also help.

In reality, can you fight a War against people who use your actions to expand their own fighting force?

Yeah Gitmo didn't help but neither does the Press and its bias against Bush. Maybe Al Jezzera bought out the big three?

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah Gitmo didn't help but neither does the Press and its bias against Bush. Maybe Al Jezzera bought out the big three?

But the press swings both ways?

There have been articles in some papers showing Bush as "All Great" and others showing him as "The Big Evil". I remember when the "Guardian" reported on his Grand-fathers conncetion with Hitler, people began to place them as a Liberal Paper, trying to destroy Bush's image, etc.

They made no mention of the Current President having anything to do with it whatsoever.

--

Another thing to remember is the Winners decide history.

If the British won the War of Independence, the American "FOunding Fathers" would have been seen as terrorists and not as the "Great" men which they are seen as now.