Bin Laden?s Iraq Plans

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage


At a secret meeting, bin Laden?s reps give bad news to the Taliban: Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new front

By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
NEWSWEEK


Dec. 15 issue ? During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.

THE CONFAB TOOK PLACE in mid-November in the remote, Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near the Pakistan border, a region where Al Qaeda has found it easy to operate?frequently even using satellite phones despite U.S. surveillance.
At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden?s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan?s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.
All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer. (Though certainly not as much as Washington would like: last week Taliban guerrillas killed a U.N. census worker in an ambush, and a rocket struck near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul only hours after a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.) Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the ?American crusaders? and that the Iraqi insurgency has been ?100 percent successful so far,? according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
So this means things are going according to plan? We can win tactially while they win strategically? or is the other way around?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So this means things are going according to plan? We can win tactially while they win strategically? or is the other way around?
I dont think they(al queda) are winning anything right now.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So this means things are going according to plan? We can win tactially while they win strategically? or is the other way around?
I dont think they(al queda) are winning anything right now.
Exactly, Al Qaeda represents nothing more than death and destruction. The problem for him is that his outift will have a hell of a time setting up a forward base in the Mid East. Unlike Pakistan-Afghanistan, this area is completely flat and the surrounding countries aren't as lawless as the Northwest-Frontier Province of Pakistan.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
The action is clearly in Iraq. The most Al-Qaeda can accomplish in Afghanistan is kill Americans, but in Iraq they can disrupt oil supply and the US economy. Also, Afghanistan is more special forces troops that execute specific missions. Iraq is more of brute force occupation, with lots of sitting ducks. All kinds of contractors trying to make a buck, more traditional US troops, etc. Lots more strategic targets to sabotage and blow up too. And media attention is on Iraq, and Al-Qaeda likes attention.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So this means things are going according to plan? We can win tactially while they win strategically? or is the other way around?
I dont think they(al queda) are winning anything right now.
How do you define "winning"?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So this means things are going according to plan? We can win tactially while they win strategically? or is the other way around?
I dont think they(al queda) are winning anything right now.
How do you define "winning"?

Well they have yet to run us out of afghanistan or iraq. I dont see either happening.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
The action is clearly in Iraq. The most Al-Qaeda can accomplish in Afghanistan is kill Americans, but in Iraq they can disrupt oil supply and the US economy. Also, Afghanistan is more special forces troops that execute specific missions. Iraq is more of brute force occupation, with lots of sitting ducks. All kinds of contractors trying to make a buck, more traditional US troops, etc. Lots more strategic targets to sabotage and blow up too. And media attention is on Iraq, and Al-Qaeda likes attention.
While all that is true. They have done a poor job disrupting oil supplies as Iraq oil production keeps rising. They are not going to affect our economy by going to Iraq.

There are more soft targets, but there is much more muscle there as well.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
to them, winning means putting a new scratch on one of our tanks as they blow themselves up

as $1.5 million funded by a madman means alot in 3rd world countries, al queda seems more like a suicidal bunch of mercenaries who hate countries that have more stuff
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
The action is clearly in Iraq. The most Al-Qaeda can accomplish in Afghanistan is kill Americans, but in Iraq they can disrupt oil supply and the US economy. Also, Afghanistan is more special forces troops that execute specific missions. Iraq is more of brute force occupation, with lots of sitting ducks. All kinds of contractors trying to make a buck, more traditional US troops, etc. Lots more strategic targets to sabotage and blow up too. And media attention is on Iraq, and Al-Qaeda likes attention.
While all that is true. They have done a poor job disrupting oil supplies as Iraq oil production keeps rising. They are not going to affect our economy by going to Iraq.

There are more soft targets, but there is much more muscle there as well.
Muscle is only a problem if you take it head on. Reagan taught them well how to take on a superpower.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
The action is clearly in Iraq. The most Al-Qaeda can accomplish in Afghanistan is kill Americans, but in Iraq they can disrupt oil supply and the US economy. Also, Afghanistan is more special forces troops that execute specific missions. Iraq is more of brute force occupation, with lots of sitting ducks. All kinds of contractors trying to make a buck, more traditional US troops, etc. Lots more strategic targets to sabotage and blow up too. And media attention is on Iraq, and Al-Qaeda likes attention.
While all that is true. They have done a poor job disrupting oil supplies as Iraq oil production keeps rising. They are not going to affect our economy by going to Iraq.

There are more soft targets, but there is much more muscle there as well.
Muscle is only a problem if you take it head on. Reagan taught them well how to take on a superpower.

From what they have shown so far, they did not learn well.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
The action is clearly in Iraq. The most Al-Qaeda can accomplish in Afghanistan is kill Americans, but in Iraq they can disrupt oil supply and the US economy. Also, Afghanistan is more special forces troops that execute specific missions. Iraq is more of brute force occupation, with lots of sitting ducks. All kinds of contractors trying to make a buck, more traditional US troops, etc. Lots more strategic targets to sabotage and blow up too. And media attention is on Iraq, and Al-Qaeda likes attention.
While all that is true. They have done a poor job disrupting oil supplies as Iraq oil production keeps rising. They are not going to affect our economy by going to Iraq.

There are more soft targets, but there is much more muscle there as well.
Muscle is only a problem if you take it head on. Reagan taught them well how to take on a superpower.

From what they have shown so far, they did not learn well.
They learned enough to build a network that could survive even if a lot of the members are killed or captured. I would not be so fast to count the chickens. USSR was in Afghanistan 79-88. I couldn't tell you what Iraq is going to be like in 2 years, much less 8.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,422
4,802
126
They don't need to eliminate the enemy, just pester it until it loses its' will to continue.
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
Funny how it took US involvement to help make the Iraq - Al-Qeada tie become a reality.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY