It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al Qaida 'Duped Allies into Waging War'

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   


Al Qaida 'Duped Allies into Waging War'

By Andrew Woodcock, Political Correspondent, PA News


One of al Qaida’s aims in its September 11 attacks on the US three years ago was to draw the west into military conflict on Arab soil, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s former envoy to Iraq acknowledged today.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s comments appeared to give some credence to the argument of critics of the Iraq War that the US and UK played into al Qaida’s hands by launching last year’s invasion.

Opponents of the war warned that it would act as a recruiting sergeant for terror chief Osama bin Laden, by appearing to confirm his claims that the West was engaged in a war on Islam, as well as providing a new field of battle for his militants.

Sir Jeremy today said the allies had “suffered the consequences” in Iraq of al Qaida’s determination to exploit the opportunities presented by a war on Arab soil.

He said that the West could not defeat bin Laden’s terror network by military means alone, but must adopt policies to reduce resentment in the Muslim world.

If the allies failed to help Iraq put an end to its current instability, they would be left “worse off than when we started”, he warned.

news.scotsman.com...



In my view, this was simple math, and should have been obvious to us before the invasion of Iraq. It was, in fact, my primary argument against the invasion. More effective means against terrorism could have been deployed. Rather than smothering the grease fire, we threw water on it. Moreover, we have now lost the advantage we could have exploited by pursuing the real terrorists, instead of settling what amounts to a personal objective unique to the President and his cronies.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
On one side of the chessboard we have George Bush, fortunate son, college cheerleader, failed oilman and baseball owner. On the other we have Osama bin Laden, fortunate son, guerilla financieer, veteran of Afghan war, and survivor on "America's Most Wanted" for 10 years. Gee, wonder who'll win this one.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I agree that US was drawn into fighting in Arab soil. Perhaps the bait was 9/11 and bush felll for it.

One of the biggest failures was to leave Afghanistan and bin-laden and jump into Iraq, and take Saddam with not plans to take care of that nation.

I also agree that US fighting in Iraq played right into the terrorist and Insurgents hands they know their lands and they can blend nicely in the population.

And US made the worst mistake jumping into Iraq without taking in consideration what could happen in the worst scenario.

Now the worst scenario is playing in Iraq and the allies “are suffering the consequence”

Now is to late and the mess is there and all we can do is admit that it was a mistake and leave and leave Iraq to the Iraqis, including their oil.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I don't think it's possible for us to just leave Iraq the way it is now Marg. That would leave it too open for extremists to come in and take it over. More terrorists are being created there now even as we speak. I think we're going to be there for awhile.
Whether we like it or not.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by elaine]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
I don't think it's possible for us to just leave Iraq the way it is now Marg. That would leave it too open for extremists to come in and take it over. More terrorists are being created there now even as we speak. I think we're going to be there for awhile.
Whether we like it or not.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by elaine]


Unfortunately, the extremists are taking over. Whatever you think about Saddam, he ran a secular dictatorship. Under democracy (or more accurately, anarchy), the Iraqis are choosing overwhelmingly to educate their children in Islamic religious schools. While under normal circumstance I would not be concerned, in the current Iraqi environment, how many fanatics do you think that will breed?

[edit on 28-9-2004 by loam]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
It's just a terrible, difficult situation that Bush has gotten us into. It's hard to say what the right answers are now. And yes I think 911 was probably a trap too. They knew the U.S. would have to do something about it.
I'm not saying that I want us to be there a long time. I hope we aren't. But I don't think Bush is not going to let go of this "democratic Iraq" idea very easily. Do you?



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I don't see where we were duped.

The terrorist network has been poking and taking jabs at the U.S. and the free-world for eternity it seems. If they wanted war, then they got it. 9/11 was a wake-up call. We've left for work and soon it'll be breaktime. What comes after breaktime is more work.

Our policies of promoting resentment towards the Islamic world is hog-wash. If we don't believe what they believe 100%, we're showing discrimination towards them.

For goodness sakes, they hate each other. We weren't duped. They are like the guy who likes to go out on a Saturday night, run his mouth and starts some trouble. Sunday comes, he's got black eyes, a broken nose and a couple of his teeth knocked out, wondering what in the world happened to him.

We just happen to be the guy they found to cause trouble with. That's all.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
But Interearthling, was'nt the attack on the world trade towers planned for quite awhile before they did it? You don't think they pondered over what actions we might take afterwards?
It was'nt a spur of the moment thing they did.
Tell me what you think they expected afterwards?



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
They are like the guy who likes to go out on a Saturday night, run his mouth and starts some trouble. Sunday comes, he's got black eyes, a broken nose and a couple of his teeth knocked out, wondering what in the world happened to him.

We just happen to be the guy they found to cause trouble with. That's all.


I don't get this analogy. I think a more appropriate one would be that its like getting bit by a fire ant in your house and then running outside in your bare feet to stomp on an anthill.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by loam]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I don't see where we were duped.

The terrorist network has been poking and taking jabs at the U.S. and the free-world for eternity it seems. If they wanted war, then they got it. 9/11 was a wake-up call. We've left for work and soon it'll be breaktime. What comes after breaktime is more work.



Basically, the plan is a strategic example of a tactic known as 'hugging the belt,' that is used when you don't have air cover or air superiority on a battlefield. Picture a huge powerful kickboxer against a smaller jujitsu opponent. The kickboxer tries to keep his opponent away from him with his arms and legs. The smaller guy wants to get in close to his opponent where the arms and legs don't make a difference from striking power.

When fighting a country like the US with only ground forces, you do not want to be at standoff distance with a large force, because very quickly the enemy commander will call in an air strike and you and your troops will be involuntarily invited to a napalm barbeque.

So, you make every effort to engage the US at such a close distance that air power is not called in because it would wipe out the US troops as well as your own.

'Standoff distance' can be used to describe the way the US has been able to deal with countries like Iran. You use economics, diplomacy, propaganda as your main tools, and strategic deterrence. These countries cannot affect US public opinion, and they cannot have any effect on the US economy or strategy. It's like a giant holding a dwarf in place by putting a hand on his head. The dwarf swings and kicks and he hits nothing. The dwarf's desire is that the giant will stop using his arms so that the dwarf can get in their and kick him in the knees and punch him in the gonads.

That's essentially what has happened by committing a large amount of ground forces to the Middle East. The ability to hold that dwarf at arm's length is lost. By every account, the insurgents in Iraq are not just some dead-enders and retards, but people working on an anti-American agenda from Iraq and other countries, and recieving considerable aid and intelligence from Iran.

Then, when you realize that Chalabi, who sold the US a rosey picture of Iraqis dancing in the streets along with a 'year zero' policy of totally wiping out everything the Iraqis were used to, is an Iranian spy, you can see how the Middle East countries are now 'hugging the belt' of the US in a strategic sense.



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Interesting analysis, taibunsuu,

I also see why the terrorist may want US in Iraq after all when Sadam was in power he had that area in control and the terrorist or Islamic fundamentalist were kept away from spreading their winds, now thanks to US invasion they are able to gain more power and more sympathy in the new liberated Iraq. Even if is true that Sadam pay for terrorist training or anything else, they were not welcome to close to Sadam's "kingdom"




posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
as stated above you cant just pull out of Iraq & come home. it has been shown time & again that the insurgents go to where the guns are going off. the solution is elementary simple, a gradual reorganization of troops from Iraq back to Afghanistan. slowly draw the fight out of the cities of Iraq and into the desolation where it began. leave protecting Iraq up to the new government. if they need our help they wont be shy about calling.




top topics



 
0

log in

join