4 US Soldiers killed in Karbala were first abducted

[conjur]

Wikipedia is your sole rebuttal?

Run off and go play with the other children.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wikipedia is your sole rebuttal?

Run off and go play with the other children.

The following website is one of the best open-source references for researching terrorist-related groups and incidents. Their empirical data is fantastic.

al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers

And then there's the well-respected Globalsecurity Organization:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm

I can't wait to see how you spin these... (and your predictable personal insults are always an added bonus!)

So don't like us down Conjie!

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Wikipedia is your sole rebuttal?

Run off and go play with the other children.

The following website is one of the best open-source references for researching terrorist-related groups and incidents. Their empirical data is fantastic.

al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers

And then there's the well-respected Globalsecurity Organization:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm

I can't wait to see how you spin these... (and your predictable personal insults are always an added bonus!)

So don't like us down Conjie!

Why does Conjur not believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Wikipedia is your sole rebuttal?

Run off and go play with the other children.

The following website is one of the best open-source references for researching terrorist-related groups and incidents. Their empirical data is fantastic.

al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers

And then there's the well-respected Globalsecurity Organization:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm

Your first link is dead. Nice try.

Your second link shows what the article I posted above says, Zarqawi was NOT Al Qaeda. He had a separate group.

I can't wait to see how you spin these... (and your predictable personal insults are always an added bonus!)

So don't like us down Conjie [sic]!

And you wonder why I call you Dr. Counterstrike or paleface?

Get. A. Fcking. Clue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Why does Conjur not believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

Educate yourself:

The Power of Nightmares

Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Narmer
Why does Conjur not believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

Educate yourself:

The Power of Nightmares

Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam

Thanks a lot. I've been looking for that documentary for a loong time. But I think you're wrong about Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are there and have been there as long as we've been there. If Al Qaeda can have cells in countless Western countries, many Middle Eastern countries, and in a warzone like Afghanistan and Chechnya, why can't they have one in Iraq? Are you saying that there's a conspiracy going on?

 

[MadRat]

Terrorism is propelled by the Shiites, not the Sunni of which the latter makes up 80% of the Islamic population. In fact, other than Iraq there are no relatively large Shia populations among the arabs. Most Shia are from Iran and are Persians. The idea that we support a Shia dominated government in Iraq just makes me sick. We should of supported a Baathist-Kurd alliance once Saddam was captured and quickly withdrawn our asses out of Iraq. Instead we propped up the very enemy that we fight today. The legitimate government of Iraq is the lifeblood of our enemy. Without them we'd of already won the war on Terror.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Narmer
Why does Conjur not believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

Educate yourself:

The Power of Nightmares

Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam

Thanks a lot. I've been looking for that documentary for a loong time. But I think you're wrong about Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are there and have been there as long as we've been there. If Al Qaeda can have cells in countless Western countries, many Middle Eastern countries, and in a warzone like Afghanistan and Chechnya, why can't they have one in Iraq? Are you saying that there's a conspiracy going on?

Don't bother... Conjur's tinfoil prevents him from being able to decipher fact from fantasy.

In his world, there's no such thing as terrorism; unless you're using the word to describe the actions of GWB, Cheney, Rummy, or one of the other global conspiratorial "neocons."

Conjur: The link is not broken for me.. maybe you're having a PEBKAC issue.

try this.. go to http://www.tkb.org and click on Groups -> Location -> Middle East / Persian Gulf -> Iraq -> al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers

It's the tenth group down... I'm sure that even you can find it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Terrorism is propelled by the Shiites, not the Sunni of which the latter makes up 80% of the Islamic population. In fact, other than Iraq there are no relatively large Shia populations among the arabs. Most Shia are from Iran and are Persians. The idea that we support a Shia dominated government in Iraq just makes me sick. We should of supported a Baathist-Kurd alliance once Saddam was captured and quickly withdrawn our asses out of Iraq. Instead we propped up the very enemy that we fight today. The legitimate government of Iraq is the lifeblood of our enemy. Without them we'd of already won the war on Terror.

umm, there are very violent terrorists across the entire Islamic spectrum. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group, while Hezbollah is a Shi'ite group. I don't know where you get the idea that only Shi'ites form terrorist groups...

Some of the most violent fanatical Muslims in history are Sunnis.

I think you need to hit the books...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Narmer
Why does Conjur not believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

Educate yourself:

The Power of Nightmares

Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam

Thanks a lot. I've been looking for that documentary for a loong time. But I think you're wrong about Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are there and have been there as long as we've been there. If Al Qaeda can have cells in countless Western countries, many Middle Eastern countries, and in a warzone like Afghanistan and Chechnya, why can't they have one in Iraq? Are you saying that there's a conspiracy going on?

What I'm saying is that "Al Qaeda" is a catch-all phrase to describe many different Islamist groups. People like paleface know better but choose instead to parrot right-wing talking points.


BTW, paleface:

Server not found













Firefox can't find the server at www.tkb.org.








* Check the address for typing errors such as
ww.example.com instead of
www.example.com

* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.

* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

 

[palehorse]

I don't know what to tell you Conjur, the site is: http://www.tkb.org/

Google "MIPT terrorism knowledge base" and click the first link.

or try their mirror: http://db.mipt.org/

it's probably a PEBKAC issue...

Btw, we did not give them the name... they named themselves Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn; which translates to al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers.

so, umm, consider yourself owned -- by me and your own PC! lol...

 

[Orignal Earl]

Maybe al-Qaeda should just run for office in Iraq
Along with the Hezbollah Movement in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Kurdistan Communist Party, the Iraqi Communist Party, and the The Upholders of the Message
It's all about Democracy aight

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, I emphatically deny any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Just because the WH and the M$M says Al Qaeda is there doesn't mean it is. Al Qaeda has become a catch-all term for any militant Islamist group. Al Qaeda, that associated with bin Laden/Zawahiri, number in the hundreds and many were killed in Afghanistan or are holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Surely you with your VAST intel knowledge would know this.

you are absolutely wrong. There is a terrorist organization in Iraq known, quite simply, as "Al Qaeda in Iraq"... they even made their name dummy proof for you.

They are very real.

ps: you know absolutely nothing about terrorism or the Middle East beyond what you've read at moveon.org.

GG

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

OMG! Now I know for SURE you are full of ****. Nothing but a right-wing parrot.

Al Qaeda in Iraq.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Even your beloved neocon heroes know that Zarqawi being linked to Al Qaeda and, hence, "Al Qaeda in Iraq", is an unfounded claim:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/18/opinion/main618114.shtml

Probably one of the better definitions of what Al Qaeda means, quoted from the Snopes message boards...

Al Qaeda originated with bin Laden's "Services Office", an organization which acted as a clearing house for support of the International Muslim Brigade, part of the resistance forces fighting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

I believe the term al Qaeda originally was the informal name used to refer to the Service Office's operational base in Pakistan (literally, it was The Base). By the time that conflict was over, this base was held in some quarters as a symbol of resistance. So, as he and his associates were re-casting their organization and targteing new enemies in the late 1988-89, the name al Qaeda was selected to evoke images of jihad against the heretics. In other words, The Base was simply a bit of artful symbology harkening back to their recent success. [The above is based on various sources duing my two tours in Afghanistan.]

Though used extensively in the media and government, the term is a bit dated. When al Qaeda issued its declaration of war in 1998, it did so in conjuction with four other terror organizations under the orgaizational title "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders." Quite a mouthful, which is no doubt why people still use al Qaeda.

Around 2001, it merged with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and changed its name to "Qa?idat al-Jihad."

In late 2004, it merged with Abu Mus?ab al-Zarqawi?s group in Iraq. It again renamed itself, this time calling itself "Qa?idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn."

During these same years, Al Qaeda has gone by several other names, to include: the Islamic Army; the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places; the Usama Bin Laden Network; the Usama Bin Laden Organization; Islamic Salvation Foundation; and The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites.

Further complicating the name issue is the fact that many terror acts have been conducted by terrorist organizations, who, while more or less separate from al Qaeda, are allied with it and are acting in pursuit of the same goals. These relationships vary from independant cooperation to close coordnation to client status to thinly disguised front organizations. Some of these allied organizations include Gama?a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Harakat ul-Mujahidin, The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen) and several others.

Further, a common tactic among terror and insurgent organizations is to give each cell or action unit a different name, thereby making it look as if there exists a widespread resistance consiting of many, many organizations.

Al Qaeda is a useful if simplistic handle, but one should not forget the true multi-faceted and multi-headed nature of the movement.

And here is an article describing Zarqawi's growing alignment with Al Qaeda, with elements within the group claiming allegiance to bin Laden...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/17/al.zarqawi.statement/

While the White House might spin it one way, and you spin it another, the truth probably lays somewhere in the middle.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, I emphatically deny any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Just because the WH and the M$M says Al Qaeda is there doesn't mean it is. Al Qaeda has become a catch-all term for any militant Islamist group. Al Qaeda, that associated with bin Laden/Zawahiri, number in the hundreds and many were killed in Afghanistan or are holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Surely you with your VAST intel knowledge would know this.

you are absolutely wrong. There is a terrorist organization in Iraq known, quite simply, as "Al Qaeda in Iraq"... they even made their name dummy proof for you.

They are very real.

ps: you know absolutely nothing about terrorism or the Middle East beyond what you've read at moveon.org.

GG

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

OMG! Now I know for SURE you are full of ****. Nothing but a right-wing parrot.

Al Qaeda in Iraq.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Even your beloved neocon heroes know that Zarqawi being linked to Al Qaeda and, hence, "Al Qaeda in Iraq", is an unfounded claim:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/18/opinion/main618114.shtml

Probably one of the better definitions of what Al Qaeda means, quoted from the Snopes message boards...

Al Qaeda originated with bin Laden's "Services Office", an organization which acted as a clearing house for support of the International Muslim Brigade, part of the resistance forces fighting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

I believe the term al Qaeda originally was the informal name used to refer to the Service Office's operational base in Pakistan (literally, it was The Base). By the time that conflict was over, this base was held in some quarters as a symbol of resistance. So, as he and his associates were re-casting their organization and targteing new enemies in the late 1988-89, the name al Qaeda was selected to evoke images of jihad against the heretics. In other words, The Base was simply a bit of artful symbology harkening back to their recent success. [The above is based on various sources duing my two tours in Afghanistan.]

Though used extensively in the media and government, the term is a bit dated. When al Qaeda issued its declaration of war in 1998, it did so in conjuction with four other terror organizations under the orgaizational title "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders." Quite a mouthful, which is no doubt why people still use al Qaeda.

Around 2001, it merged with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and changed its name to "Qa?idat al-Jihad."

In late 2004, it merged with Abu Mus?ab al-Zarqawi?s group in Iraq. It again renamed itself, this time calling itself "Qa?idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn."

During these same years, Al Qaeda has gone by several other names, to include: the Islamic Army; the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places; the Usama Bin Laden Network; the Usama Bin Laden Organization; Islamic Salvation Foundation; and The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites.

Further complicating the name issue is the fact that many terror acts have been conducted by terrorist organizations, who, while more or less separate from al Qaeda, are allied with it and are acting in pursuit of the same goals. These relationships vary from independant cooperation to close coordnation to client status to thinly disguised front organizations. Some of these allied organizations include Gama?a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Harakat ul-Mujahidin, The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen) and several others.

Further, a common tactic among terror and insurgent organizations is to give each cell or action unit a different name, thereby making it look as if there exists a widespread resistance consiting of many, many organizations.

Al Qaeda is a useful if simplistic handle, but one should not forget the true multi-faceted and multi-headed nature of the movement.

And here is an article describing Zarqawi's growing alignment with Al Qaeda, with elements within the group claiming allegiance to bin Laden...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/17/al.zarqawi.statement/

While the White House might spin it one way, and you spin it another, the truth probably lays somewhere in the middle.

bin Laden hadn't used the term "al Qaeda" for himself. It wasn't until the US went after him and his organization using the RICO Act did the term Al Qaeda come to be applied to bin Laden's group (and consequently to just about any other Islamist group this admin deems fitting).

And that CNN article? What a laugh. A lot of fluff and admin rhetoric in there.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur
bin Laden hadn't used the term "al Qaeda" for himself. It wasn't until the US went after him and his organization using the RICO Act did the term Al Qaeda come to be applied to bin Laden's group (and consequently to just about any other Islamist group this admin deems fitting).

oh wow.. you really need to hit the accurate history books!

The term Al Qeada (AQ), meaning "the base" in Arabic, was first used by OBL and friends in 1988 or 1989 after the Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) was split into two groups. The group that chose to follow OBL became known as AQ. Since then, other large terrorists have come to associate with Al Qaeda formally. The largest of those is the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), which merged with OBL and the MAK remnants to form the body, or core, of AQ. The EIJ merged with AQ during the 90's. EIJ's former leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, became OBL's right-hand man.

Other groups that are known to have formal ties with AQ are the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria, and an offshoot of GIA known as the Salafist Group (GSPC).

Many others, such as Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers, have ties with AQ that are more informal, but their adherence to AQ's philosophies and goals are without question. Many such groups coordinate their efforts with AQ and frequently announce their support for their AQ "brethren."

Like I said, you really need to hit the books. A lot of this information is written in sources originating from all around the globe, including Muslim scholars; so, it's going to be very difficult for you to blame Bush and the US for inventing Al Qaeda.

As for the US creating the name "Al Qaeda," I cannot believe that someone as educated as yourself would say something so ridiculous... the only thing I can come up with is that you did so in order to spite someone or force a reaction. You have to know you're wrong on this issue.. nobody can be that stupid... can they?

 

[conjur]

Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda
Its size and reach have been blown out of proportion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly.

In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion. Posters and matchbooks featuring bin Laden's face and the reward for his capture in a dozen languages transformed this little-known "jihadist" into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance.

By committing itself to eradicating terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself in a difficult position, especially if "Al Qaeda" begins popping up all over the map. While the US government must be diligent in protecting its citizens, it cannot try to extinguish every terrorist flame that appears without further encouraging the phenomenon as well as exhausting its resources. America must choose its battles wisely.

Resisting immediate attribution of attacks to Al Qaeda is the first step in defusing the enemy. While the Bush administration has not necessarily been blaming all post-9/11 attacks on Al Qaeda, it has passively allowed others to claim themselves as Al Qaeda or to blame it.

By allowing Al Qaeda to become the top brand name of international terrorism, Washington has packaged the "enemy" into something with a structure, a leader, and a main area of operation.

An invisible, amorphous enemy may be even more frightening. But we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy to combat terrorism.

Zarqawi was as much "Al Qaeda" as were the Miami 7.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur
Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda
Its size and reach have been blown out of proportion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly.

In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion. Posters and matchbooks featuring bin Laden's face and the reward for his capture in a dozen languages transformed this little-known "jihadist" into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance.

By committing itself to eradicating terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself in a difficult position, especially if "Al Qaeda" begins popping up all over the map. While the US government must be diligent in protecting its citizens, it cannot try to extinguish every terrorist flame that appears without further encouraging the phenomenon as well as exhausting its resources. America must choose its battles wisely.

Resisting immediate attribution of attacks to Al Qaeda is the first step in defusing the enemy. While the Bush administration has not necessarily been blaming all post-9/11 attacks on Al Qaeda, it has passively allowed others to claim themselves as Al Qaeda or to blame it.

By allowing Al Qaeda to become the top brand name of international terrorism, Washington has packaged the "enemy" into something with a structure, a leader, and a main area of operation.

An invisible, amorphous enemy may be even more frightening. But we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy to combat terrorism.

Zarqawi was as much "Al Qaeda" as were the Miami 7.

Zarqawi identified himself with AQ, and personally had an informal relationship with the core leadership of AQ. We know of at least two correspondences between Zarqawi and AQ's core leadership; one of which was him asking permission to name his group as he did, and at the same time pledge fealty and obedience to OBL. The second is his oft-published letter that was supposedly found on or near his body.

You are correct in that most people use the term too frequently to describe groups that are only suspected of having direct ties with AQ. The problem is that many such groups associate themselves with AQ, so it's truly difficult to figure out which ones do have actual ties versus those who are merely attempting to bolster their own reputations.

However, there is no doubt that AQ has a very great influence on fanatical groups around the world. But, you're right on one point. That is, their actual core membership is much smaller than most people think.

I've seen attempts at org-charts that would make your eyes glaze over. Known vs. suspected links make the entire web a nightmare to observe or decipher.

What is your angle here anyways Conjur? What are you trying to accomplish in this thread? In other words, what exactly are you trying to debunk?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda
Its size and reach have been blown out of proportion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly.

In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion. Posters and matchbooks featuring bin Laden's face and the reward for his capture in a dozen languages transformed this little-known "jihadist" into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance.

By committing itself to eradicating terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself in a difficult position, especially if "Al Qaeda" begins popping up all over the map. While the US government must be diligent in protecting its citizens, it cannot try to extinguish every terrorist flame that appears without further encouraging the phenomenon as well as exhausting its resources. America must choose its battles wisely.

Resisting immediate attribution of attacks to Al Qaeda is the first step in defusing the enemy. While the Bush administration has not necessarily been blaming all post-9/11 attacks on Al Qaeda, it has passively allowed others to claim themselves as Al Qaeda or to blame it.

By allowing Al Qaeda to become the top brand name of international terrorism, Washington has packaged the "enemy" into something with a structure, a leader, and a main area of operation.

An invisible, amorphous enemy may be even more frightening. But we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy to combat terrorism.

Zarqawi was as much "Al Qaeda" as were the Miami 7.

Zarqawi identified himself with AQ, and personally had an informal relationship with the core leadership of AQ. We know of at least two correspondences between Zarqawi and AQ's core leadership; one of which was him asking permission to name his group as he did, and at the same time pledge fealty and obedience to OBL. The second is his oft-published letter that was supposedly found on or near his body.

You are correct in that most people use the term too frequently to describe groups that are only suspected of having direct ties with AQ. The problem is that many such groups associate themselves with AQ, so it's truly difficult to figure out which ones do have actual ties versus those who are merely attempting to bolster their own reputations.

However, there is no doubt that AQ has a very great influence on fanatical groups around the world. But, you're right on one point. That is, their actual core membership is much smaller than most people think.

I've seen attempts at org-charts that would make your eyes glaze over. Known vs. suspected links make the entire web a nightmare to observe or decipher.

What is your angle here anyways Conjur? What are you trying to accomplish in this thread? In other words, what exactly are you trying to debunk?

There, finally, was that so hard to admit? Jesus Christ it's worse then pulling teeth with you all sometimes.

However, just because some group "associates" itself with Al Qaeda doesn't make them linked. If I say I like bananas, does that make me a monkey? If I say I like alfalfa sprouts, does that make me a vegetarian? If I say the US is engaging in wars of aggression for capitalistic ideals does that associate me with Al Qaeda? Are the "Miami 7" linked or associated with Al Qaeda?

NO!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda
Its size and reach have been blown out of proportion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly.

In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion. Posters and matchbooks featuring bin Laden's face and the reward for his capture in a dozen languages transformed this little-known "jihadist" into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance.

By committing itself to eradicating terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself in a difficult position, especially if "Al Qaeda" begins popping up all over the map. While the US government must be diligent in protecting its citizens, it cannot try to extinguish every terrorist flame that appears without further encouraging the phenomenon as well as exhausting its resources. America must choose its battles wisely.

Resisting immediate attribution of attacks to Al Qaeda is the first step in defusing the enemy. While the Bush administration has not necessarily been blaming all post-9/11 attacks on Al Qaeda, it has passively allowed others to claim themselves as Al Qaeda or to blame it.

By allowing Al Qaeda to become the top brand name of international terrorism, Washington has packaged the "enemy" into something with a structure, a leader, and a main area of operation.

An invisible, amorphous enemy may be even more frightening. But we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy to combat terrorism.

Zarqawi was as much "Al Qaeda" as were the Miami 7.

Zarqawi identified himself with AQ, and personally had an informal relationship with the core leadership of AQ. We know of at least two correspondences between Zarqawi and AQ's core leadership; one of which was him asking permission to name his group as he did, and at the same time pledge fealty and obedience to OBL. The second is his oft-published letter that was supposedly found on or near his body.

You are correct in that most people use the term too frequently to describe groups that are only suspected of having direct ties with AQ. The problem is that many such groups associate themselves with AQ, so it's truly difficult to figure out which ones do have actual ties versus those who are merely attempting to bolster their own reputations.

However, there is no doubt that AQ has a very great influence on fanatical groups around the world. But, you're right on one point. That is, their actual core membership is much smaller than most people think.

I've seen attempts at org-charts that would make your eyes glaze over. Known vs. suspected links make the entire web a nightmare to observe or decipher.

What is your angle here anyways Conjur? What are you trying to accomplish in this thread? In other words, what exactly are you trying to debunk?

There, finally, was that so hard to admit? Jesus Christ it's worse then pulling teeth with you all sometimes.

However, just because some group "associates" itself with Al Qaeda doesn't make them linked. If I say I like bananas, does that make me a monkey? If I say I like alfalfa sprouts, does that make me a vegetarian? If I say the US is engaging in wars of aggression for capitalistic ideals does that associate me with Al Qaeda? Are the "Miami 7" linked or associated with Al Qaeda?

NO!

If the average news anchor tried to break down the terrorist groups and subgroups by their actual names for the viewers, he/she would only succeed in confusing everyone.

I personally believe that it is OK for them to address terrorist groups as "AQ", or "possibly linked to AQ,, as long as there are at least some suspected ties between the two groups.

Like I said before, if Joe Citizen was forced to try and understand the more detailed global organizational charts, their eyes would glaze over.

So, if your were to say "My group espouses the same beliefs as Al Qaeda, and we, the Conjur Grouphugs and Bananas Coalition (CGBC), have pledged our fealty to OBL in the global Jihad" -- then yes, you can be called "Al Qaeda" by Peter Jennings, and there would be nothing wrong with that...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda
Its size and reach have been blown out of proportion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly.

In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion. Posters and matchbooks featuring bin Laden's face and the reward for his capture in a dozen languages transformed this little-known "jihadist" into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance.

By committing itself to eradicating terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself in a difficult position, especially if "Al Qaeda" begins popping up all over the map. While the US government must be diligent in protecting its citizens, it cannot try to extinguish every terrorist flame that appears without further encouraging the phenomenon as well as exhausting its resources. America must choose its battles wisely.

Resisting immediate attribution of attacks to Al Qaeda is the first step in defusing the enemy. While the Bush administration has not necessarily been blaming all post-9/11 attacks on Al Qaeda, it has passively allowed others to claim themselves as Al Qaeda or to blame it.

By allowing Al Qaeda to become the top brand name of international terrorism, Washington has packaged the "enemy" into something with a structure, a leader, and a main area of operation.

An invisible, amorphous enemy may be even more frightening. But we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy to combat terrorism.

Zarqawi was as much "Al Qaeda" as were the Miami 7.

Zarqawi identified himself with AQ, and personally had an informal relationship with the core leadership of AQ. We know of at least two correspondences between Zarqawi and AQ's core leadership; one of which was him asking permission to name his group as he did, and at the same time pledge fealty and obedience to OBL. The second is his oft-published letter that was supposedly found on or near his body.

You are correct in that most people use the term too frequently to describe groups that are only suspected of having direct ties with AQ. The problem is that many such groups associate themselves with AQ, so it's truly difficult to figure out which ones do have actual ties versus those who are merely attempting to bolster their own reputations.

However, there is no doubt that AQ has a very great influence on fanatical groups around the world. But, you're right on one point. That is, their actual core membership is much smaller than most people think.

I've seen attempts at org-charts that would make your eyes glaze over. Known vs. suspected links make the entire web a nightmare to observe or decipher.

What is your angle here anyways Conjur? What are you trying to accomplish in this thread? In other words, what exactly are you trying to debunk?

There, finally, was that so hard to admit? Jesus Christ it's worse then pulling teeth with you all sometimes.

However, just because some group "associates" itself with Al Qaeda doesn't make them linked. If I say I like bananas, does that make me a monkey? If I say I like alfalfa sprouts, does that make me a vegetarian? If I say the US is engaging in wars of aggression for capitalistic ideals does that associate me with Al Qaeda? Are the "Miami 7" linked or associated with Al Qaeda?

NO!

If the average news anchor tried to break down the terrorist groups and subgroups by their actual names for the viewers, he/she would only succeed in confusing everyone.

I personally believe that it is OK for them to address terrorist groups as "AQ", or "possibly linked to AQ,, as long as there are at least some suspected ties between the two groups.

Like I said before, if Joe Citizen was forced to try and understand the more detailed global organizational charts, their eyes would glaze over.

So, if your were to say "My group espouses the same beliefs as Al Qaeda, and we, the Conjur Grouphugs and Bananas Coalition (CGBC), have pledged our fealty to OBL in the global Jihad" -- then yes, you can be called "Al Qaeda" by Peter Jennings, and there would be nothing wrong with that...

Oh, please.

It's VERY disingenuous and even dishonest to link them all to Al Qaeda to make it easy for Joe Citizen and you should damn well know why: OBL. The very mention of Al Qaeda brings up images of Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. That lends perfectly into the hands of Bush and his neocon masters in their drive to control the message.

Why not call them what they are? Militant Islamist groups.

 

[BuckNaked]

Significant Update 1/30

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1583523,00.html

Are the Iranians Out for Revenge?
Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007
By ROBERT BAER

The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons' favorite quietist Shi'a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq's Shi'a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.

And that's not the worst of it. American forces still hold five members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Arrested by American forces in Erbil on Jan. 11, the Administration has accused the five IRGC members of helping the Iraqi opposition kill Americans.

I've written here before that the IRGC has a long history of calculated violence against its enemies, particularly the United States. The Administration's accusations are plausible. But at the same time the U.S. needs to remember what a serious spoiler the IRGC can be when provoked.

In July 1982, after a Christian Lebanese militia kidnapped the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, the IRGC set in motion a campaign of retaliatory kidnappings, hijackings and assassinations against the U.S. and the West. The Iranian charge was a senior IRGC officer, and the IRGC had no intention of letting his kidnapping go unanswered. The IRGC campaign lasted for more than 10 years and dragged the U.S. into Iran-contra and the arms-for-hostages deal that nearly brought down the Reagan Administration.

Some Iraqis speculate that the IRGC has already started a campaign of revenge with the killing of five American soldiers in Karbala on Jan. 20, nine days after the arrest of the IRGC members in Erbil. As the logic of the rumor goes, five American soldiers were killed for five Iranians taken; Karbala was an IRGC message to release its colleagues ? or else.

The speculation that Karbala was an IRGC operation may have as much to do with Iraqis' respect for IRGC capacity for revenge as it does with the truth. Nevertheless, we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn't underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage."Let me put it this way,"he said."In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar."He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi'a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.

Mindful of the spreading chaos in Iraq, President Bush has promised not to take the war into Iran. But it won't matter to the IRGC. There is nothing the IRGC likes better than to fight a proxy war in another country. Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

and from the front page of Drudge...

NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing...

If true, this could possibly be a significant turning point for a change in policy in regards to dealing with Iran...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Debunk the myth of Al Qaeda
Its size and reach have been blown out of proportion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly.

In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion. Posters and matchbooks featuring bin Laden's face and the reward for his capture in a dozen languages transformed this little-known "jihadist" into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance.

By committing itself to eradicating terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself in a difficult position, especially if "Al Qaeda" begins popping up all over the map. While the US government must be diligent in protecting its citizens, it cannot try to extinguish every terrorist flame that appears without further encouraging the phenomenon as well as exhausting its resources. America must choose its battles wisely.

Resisting immediate attribution of attacks to Al Qaeda is the first step in defusing the enemy. While the Bush administration has not necessarily been blaming all post-9/11 attacks on Al Qaeda, it has passively allowed others to claim themselves as Al Qaeda or to blame it.

By allowing Al Qaeda to become the top brand name of international terrorism, Washington has packaged the "enemy" into something with a structure, a leader, and a main area of operation.

An invisible, amorphous enemy may be even more frightening. But we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy to combat terrorism.

Zarqawi was as much "Al Qaeda" as were the Miami 7.

Zarqawi identified himself with AQ, and personally had an informal relationship with the core leadership of AQ. We know of at least two correspondences between Zarqawi and AQ's core leadership; one of which was him asking permission to name his group as he did, and at the same time pledge fealty and obedience to OBL. The second is his oft-published letter that was supposedly found on or near his body.

You are correct in that most people use the term too frequently to describe groups that are only suspected of having direct ties with AQ. The problem is that many such groups associate themselves with AQ, so it's truly difficult to figure out which ones do have actual ties versus those who are merely attempting to bolster their own reputations.

However, there is no doubt that AQ has a very great influence on fanatical groups around the world. But, you're right on one point. That is, their actual core membership is much smaller than most people think.

I've seen attempts at org-charts that would make your eyes glaze over. Known vs. suspected links make the entire web a nightmare to observe or decipher.

What is your angle here anyways Conjur? What are you trying to accomplish in this thread? In other words, what exactly are you trying to debunk?

There, finally, was that so hard to admit? Jesus Christ it's worse then pulling teeth with you all sometimes.

However, just because some group "associates" itself with Al Qaeda doesn't make them linked. If I say I like bananas, does that make me a monkey? If I say I like alfalfa sprouts, does that make me a vegetarian? If I say the US is engaging in wars of aggression for capitalistic ideals does that associate me with Al Qaeda? Are the "Miami 7" linked or associated with Al Qaeda?

NO!

If the average news anchor tried to break down the terrorist groups and subgroups by their actual names for the viewers, he/she would only succeed in confusing everyone.

I personally believe that it is OK for them to address terrorist groups as "AQ", or "possibly linked to AQ,, as long as there are at least some suspected ties between the two groups.

Like I said before, if Joe Citizen was forced to try and understand the more detailed global organizational charts, their eyes would glaze over.

So, if your were to say "My group espouses the same beliefs as Al Qaeda, and we, the Conjur Grouphugs and Bananas Coalition (CGBC), have pledged our fealty to OBL in the global Jihad" -- then yes, you can be called "Al Qaeda" by Peter Jennings, and there would be nothing wrong with that...

Oh, please.

It's VERY disingenuous and even dishonest to link them all to Al Qaeda to make it easy for Joe Citizen and you should damn well know why: OBL. The very mention of Al Qaeda brings up images of Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. That lends perfectly into the hands of Bush and his neocon masters in their drive to control the message.

Why not call them what they are? Militant Islamist groups.

As I said, the average citizen would just get lost if they tried to decipher the actual link diagrams depicting global terrorism networks... but hey, if you think they can handle all of that input, feel free to start a grass-roots campaign educating them on the subject... you do know the proper breakdown, right? well then, go for it!

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Significant Update 1/30

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1583523,00.html

Are the Iranians Out for Revenge?
Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007
By ROBERT BAER

The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons' favorite quietist Shi'a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq's Shi'a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.

And that's not the worst of it. American forces still hold five members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Arrested by American forces in Erbil on Jan. 11, the Administration has accused the five IRGC members of helping the Iraqi opposition kill Americans.

I've written here before that the IRGC has a long history of calculated violence against its enemies, particularly the United States. The Administration's accusations are plausible. But at the same time the U.S. needs to remember what a serious spoiler the IRGC can be when provoked.

In July 1982, after a Christian Lebanese militia kidnapped the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, the IRGC set in motion a campaign of retaliatory kidnappings, hijackings and assassinations against the U.S. and the West. The Iranian charge was a senior IRGC officer, and the IRGC had no intention of letting his kidnapping go unanswered. The IRGC campaign lasted for more than 10 years and dragged the U.S. into Iran-contra and the arms-for-hostages deal that nearly brought down the Reagan Administration.

Some Iraqis speculate that the IRGC has already started a campaign of revenge with the killing of five American soldiers in Karbala on Jan. 20, nine days after the arrest of the IRGC members in Erbil. As the logic of the rumor goes, five American soldiers were killed for five Iranians taken; Karbala was an IRGC message to release its colleagues ? or else.

The speculation that Karbala was an IRGC operation may have as much to do with Iraqis' respect for IRGC capacity for revenge as it does with the truth. Nevertheless, we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn't underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage."Let me put it this way,"he said."In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar."He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi'a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.

Mindful of the spreading chaos in Iraq, President Bush has promised not to take the war into Iran. But it won't matter to the IRGC. There is nothing the IRGC likes better than to fight a proxy war in another country. Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

and from the front page of Drudge...

NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing...

If true, this could possibly be a significant turning point for a change in policy in regards to dealing with Iran...

Well, that is what I said a few days ago in this thread. Looks like it may be correct after all though I would like to see more confirmation.

 

[conjur]

Jesus.

NBC News was reporting the reasoning behind the US claim that this was an Iranian-backed raid:


It was too organized to have been Iraqi insurgents.




Uhhhhh......

😕


And people are BUYING this sh*t?!?!