Topic awaiting preservation: Terrorist wanted Bush elected (Page 1 of 1)

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041224%2F0634469096.htm&photoid=20041222XJD107

But of course the French would say that!!!

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Very interesting. Either that Islamic military leader is very short sighted, or that reporter is not telling the truth. I think the latter is most likely. An Islamic underground military of that magnitude would be pretty hard to hide. Also, I think that a warmonger after you with several millions if not billions of dollars is not too good for your health either.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

A Warmonger that isn't particularly interested in hunting you is very good for your health. For example, Bin Laden is Mr. Bush's greatest failure and a good example of the truth of this statement.

quote:

---

An Islamic underground military of that magnitude would be pretty hard to hide.

---

Among millions? Well, that depends on how they are built. Actually, if they are using the cell structure that Al Queda is using, for example, they would be very difficult to find. We have seen these militants grow in both numbers, and in effectiveness over time now. We had a chance to stomp them out, and to "catch" the grass-roots interests of the Iraqis - the "hearts and minds" so to speak. That seems to be largely over now. We failed miserably. Now, it is not the fault of our soldiers over there - they are doing the best job that they can. But those sitting in high places are really making a mess of things. Through their mistakes, our troops are dying, Iraqis are dying, and any chance to reverse the situation has slipped away.

First, it was just "isolated" incidents, they said. Then it was an "insurgency" from Fallujah that had to be stamped out (along with the whole city), they said. Now, it is the elections, they say. And after that?

C'mon, it is not a lie we believe anymore, is it? Something has gone seriously wrong in Iraq - it is time that we admit that. We need to start making plans for how we can get our necks out of the noose called Iraq, without hanging. I don't believe that we will be militarily defeated - no, not that. But that is not really what this is all about.

quote:

---

Either that Islamic military leader is very short sighted, or that reporter is not telling the truth.

---

Irregardless of who is telling the "truth" here - the facts remain, that the militants in Iraq are growing, despite losses, and being hugely outgunned. In a stand-up fight, they lose, and know this. So they have concentrated on that which is vulnerable - with much success to date. To underestimate this is very foolish. I think too many have forgotten the lesson that Russia had to learn in Afghanistan (which is basically the same situation we have in Iraq, with exception of the geography).

"that reporter" is specialized in Mid Orient ( or Mid East, I'm not sure which expression is right in English ), and has been taken hostage for 124 days in IRAQ. Therefore I doubt he's lying. Plus the Islamic terrorists/movements are growing thanks to their ideology. Which ideology is pushed by the occupation of Iraq. So the hard foreign policy of Bush is working for them.

Georges Chesnot and Christian Malbrunot also said that among the Islamic Army in Iraq there is some Islamist militants, but also some former militaries and members of the information services of the Bathist party.

Oh, and some people seem to forget that the terrorists movements don't care about their health. They are ready, and proud, to die for their ideology.

So these militants, are they rising? I thought that taking out a huge evil tyrant was a good thing? Should we have not done it?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Taking out a huge, evil tyrant is generally considered a positive thing. Not having a fucking clue of a plan of what to do afterwards is not a positive thing. If you are not going to do it right, then do not do it. Plain and simple.

There are also several ways to remove huge, evil tyrants. Some of those ways are better than others.
Dropping 150 billion tons of thermonuclear fission on every square meter of the earth would get rid of lots of evil tyrants.
Simply waiting around until the huge, evil tyrant dies is also a strategy for ridding one's self of huge, evil tyrants.

Obviously, these are two extremes, but they show very well there are many ways to rid one's self of huge, evil tyrants. The wisdom comes in picking the right way.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

The wisdom comes in picking the right way.

---

That is true. I don't know about Bin Laden though. Do you think the Alqaeda (bad spelling) would have stopped even if he had been assasinated? I doubt it. I think it is more of a thing how the organization hates America, and Bin Laden just has the fate of being the figure head of that organization.

One question. We went into Iraq to stop Hussien's proposed nuclear or biological weapons. If he had those before, why did we decide to attack him now, knowing that we are still in a war in Afganistan? Why would Bush and his administration want to do something like that?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon, you don't understand - you can't just let a man that is directly responsible for 9/11 run around free. Not capturing (or at least killing) him provides a "heroic" example to millions who hate the US. He must be brought to justice. Mr. Bush lied and failed to do this - he promised us that he would do this - and then invaded Iraq! Bin Laden's trail is now stone cold, and he is still out there, and still providing an example to millions. The question of whether or not Al Quaida will go on without him, is largely a moot question in that regards.

quote:

---

We went into Iraq to stop Hussien's proposed nuclear or biological weapons. If he had those before, why did we decide to attack him now, knowing that we are still in a war in Afganistan? Why would Bush and his administration want to do something like that?

---

Now that is a good question, Gideon. If the original reason was a lie, why did they do it? They now say it was to get rid of Saddam - but that rings pretty hollow (though one might just believe Mr. Bush on that). I suspect, it is one of money, and one of ideology - many neo-cons believe that the fall of a dictator in Iraq, replaced with a democracy will result in a "domino effect" in the region. And of course the oil in Iraq makes for a nice, juicy prize.

Problem being, that in order to bring this about, the Iraqis must be willing to embrace democracy (one can't cram it down their throats, as we are unfortunately finding out). And of course, not having the slightest clue or plan on how to bring this about doesn't help.

The "why" is answered in fairly plain, open language right >>> there (pdf).
Notice when it was written. 12 months PRIOR to the terrorists attacks of 2001 and, in fact three months before the Bush/Gore election was even settled.
Actually, have a look through all their documents and reports. It is simple acknowledgement of every thing the Bush White House has done and plans to do.
PNAC is not only the voice, but the brains and guts behind the neo-con movement.

^Yes, there is always that. Thanks for the link to the pdf.