Al Qaeda In Iraq is going to get all Sunni's slaughtered or forced to flee

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Pseudonym Back to the matter at hand 11/24/2005 2:38:46 AM

What does everyone think is going to happen to the Sunni's now that it is clear they are sponsoring terrorists that clearly consider the Shia and Kurds Infidels. I mean they are bombing Mosques. That isn't a very good idea if they expect any hopes of survival. They are making, dare i say it, the fight too religious. They are ensuring there will be no way the Shia and Kurds can let anyone involved live.

Quote Reply

Bob RE:Al Qaeda In Iraq is going to get all Sunni's slaughtered or forced to flee 11/24/2005 3:02:34 AM

>> True that is a good way to look at it. Perhaps Osama was being manuiplated by Saddam and didn't even know it. That would explain why all the AQ prisoners denied there was ever a connection, they just didn't know there was one. AQ was just eager to have more people on board to fight the US, they didn't care where they were from. << Think about it? How many lower tier AQ members would know what really was going on, or why would upper echelon members even bother to tell lower echelon members just why they were strapping bombs to themselves? Do we even know that any of the people onboard those planes on 9/11 knew they were going to die, besides the pilots or the leaders? For all we know, they could've thought they were going to land in Chicago or L.A or Pyongyang that day. Manipulation is terrorism 101. The Algerians coming into Iraq to blow themselves up have to take all kinds of opiates to get themselves riled up in order to kill Iraqi children, to further the brainwashing. These are things that need to be remembered, as sick as it is - the human element of the terrorists. >> The lingering doubt I have about Yousef is that he never spent any time in Iraq, his only contact with Iraqi officals was during the 1990 occupation of Kuwait. He may have been a collaborater but how could the Iraqi IIS mark him for a future terrorist master? There were certainly more collaboraters in Kuwait and if there was a "wet" program going on in Kuwait, where the IIS was using identiies of Kuwaitis, certianly it would have come to light by now in either Kuwait or Iraq. << What has been released about him (him being Ramzi Yousef) tells that he spent *little* time in Iraq (even though we know that he did). But if he had three names, then how do we know he didn't have a fourth name, and that THIS was the name he used while he was tearing ass around Iraq in 1989 or 1990? Simon Reeve wrote a book called The New Jackals, and in it, he talked about how a couple intelligence officials noticed that Ramzi Yousef had links to a "fixer" whose job was to procure dual-use items for Iraq, a man named Ihsan Barbouti. In this book, one person says that he worked for Barbouti. He was an Iraqi, living in Houston, who bought materials for Iraq's WMD programs. This was throughout the 1980s, moreso the late 80s. If Yousef was linked to him, what would that mean? But still, even given the public record, as far as you and I know, Ramzi Yousef is the name printed on a genuine Iraqi passport, issued on Sept 11, 1990 in Baghdad. Which is a month after the invasion of Kuwait, and a little earlier than the time Yousef's family in Kuwait was given safe passage through Iraq, into Iran, and back to their native Baluchistan. There are really just too many coincidences to rule many things out. These are the things I consider "evidence" of Iraq involvement in the 93 WTC bombing. >> True he is there and is considered the leader, but it does make a big difference if it was pre-war or post-war. Post-war the Baathists would be so desperate that they would latch on to anyone to help save them. If it was pre-war however...well then the US was right to invade Iraq. << Well, consider this: Colin Powell, the man who was most skeptical about the neocon's claims of Iraqi involvement in the attacks, he is the one who laid his reputation on the line by talking about Zarqawi as the prime link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And he claimed it as pre-war. But regardless, Zarqawi had ties to the IIS in the early 1990s, and he was the guy who moved to Baghdad following our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. And I disagree that if his ties to Iraq were pre-war, then it justified the Iraqi invasion. His moving to Iraq was a result of the bellowing of this administration in the buildup to war. The Baathists called on him to help run their terrorist insurgency. It was more like "oh crap, they're going to invade us, so come help us" than it was Zarqawi being a staunch alli of Iraq and heeding some sort of call of duty to repel the invasion. He was asked to, really. But that's the way terrorism works. 10 agendas (all to kill Americans) but the real "why" is as meaningless as the means through which to kill us. >> That is the million dollar question. It is possible that it came from Iraq, or Syria, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Certianly the account was a special account, and was catered to a specail kind of client---rich, powerful, and untraceable.<< It could have come from anywhere! We do not know. How could we ever know? How could anyone seriously ever know? I actually have people I am related to who have opened phoney bank accounts to fund investments, because they would be untraceable after a certain number of steps afterward! Is it any wonder that terrorists would do the same thing, if it is that easy? The question then comes after this knowledge - the whys they would do it, the how they would do it, the motive, the modus operandi, etc, etc.

Quote Reply

paul1970 RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/24/2005 5:44:49 AM

presumably the Sunni's think that more Sunni's from other nations will come to their rescue if the coalition are forced to leave and a full scale civil war breaks out.

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/25/2005 1:40:42 AM

>>presumably the Sunni's think that more Sunni's from other nations will come to their rescue if the coalition are forced to leave and a full scale civil war breaks out. >> Well this is fast becoming a reality now. It is obvious the Sunnis can ratchet up the violence with the coalition there, it's another matter if they can sustain it. The coalition is pretty much done after this year only the US and GB are really left, and both are talking about seriously decreasing troop levels. If US troop levels fall below 100,000 I think full scale civil war is a reality. On the other hand to date there have been 160 pacification operations in Iraq by the US, yet there are still 120 attacks a day, so it doesn't seem like we have made a dent in the insurgeny, we are just in a holding pattern. The Iraqi troops do not appear to be able to conduct operations on their own either. So I don't know what the answer is; The Sunnis seem to want to kill as many Shiites as possible with or without the US in Iraq, and they have that capabilty right now. The US is in for a long hard slog in Iraq.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/25/2005 2:23:56 AM

"The Iraqi troops do not appear to be able to conduct operations on their own either." The last I heard they were progressing well. Anyways the Shia and Kurd Militias don't really have to conduct operations per se if they decide for Jihad vs Iraqi Sunni's. Thats not an operation, that is simply door to door slaughter of all fighting age male Sunni's. If someone sends their Army in to stop it, other Sunni's, then there is a war and things get real ugly. So ugly in fact that we might have to step back in and put BOTH sides back in their place. I don't agree with the wholesale slaughter of the Sunni's, just those that support terror. I am sure a goodly portion of the Sunnis have no choice but to go along or get killed, but when things get religious, and mosques start blowing up, guilty and innocent sometimes become irrelevant to them. Which would mean we would probably have to do something.

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/25/2005 12:40:14 PM

"The last I heard they were progressing well" Only one out of 96 operational battalions can stand on its own wihtout US troops. Given the domestic pressure now and the pressure some in the new Iraqi government are exerting it seems likely that the US will have to step back and let the Sunni and Shia at themselves. This would lead to foreign intervention--most likely Iran as Syria has been througholy chastised for its foreign intervention of Lebanon (even though it stabilized that country and ended a bloody civil war). Bush has to be honest about what our goals are now in Iraq, and proceed accordingly otherwise Iraq will become a puppet of the Iranian mullahs.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/25/2005 11:13:03 PM

"This would lead to foreign intervention--most likely Iran" And you think the USA would sit and watch Iran invade Iraq? I mean even a Democratic President, if they win the next election, would at the very least use airpower to protect Iraq like we did the Kurds. A Republican President would probably use it as an excuse to take away Iran's nuke program.

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/26/2005 11:06:42 AM

The US leaders watched Iraq invade Iran, or attempt to do it. They have watched Syria invade Lebanon, they watched the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan. Iranian intervention does not have to be under the pretext of an invasion. Remember the Shiite regime is very friendly with Iran, they could simply "invite" the Iranians to help them with their "Sunni problem". Thus the Iranians are legitimate under international law, the US would have no case in the Security Council, and what country in the region would allow the US to use them as a base to attack Iran. Once the US withdraws it troops, they don;t have a claim to Iraq that would be seen as legitimate by Iraqis or the international community.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:Back to the matter at hand 11/26/2005 5:31:34 PM

You are forgetting a little thing called the WOT.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym Iraqi Shia are preparing to give the Sunni a dose of their own medicine 11/27/2005 8:14:40 PM

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case they might make a stable Iraq. This is the number one reason the Sunni's have screwed themselves. They could have waited out the US troops and then had a chance of retaking power, but they are so stupid they prefer to kill everyone not like them, thinking the "infidels"(this includes Muslims) would never be able to keep power over them. Surely Allah would not allow such a travesty, right? link "Shiite urges U.S. to give leeway in Iraq fight Americans have blocked tougher tactics against rebels, cleric says By Ellen Knickmeyer The Washington Post Updated: 9:54 a.m. ET Nov. 27, 2005 BAGHDAD - The leader of Iraq's most powerful political party has called on the United States to let Iraqi fighters take a more aggressive role against insurgents, saying his country will only be able to defeat the insurgency when the United States lets Iraqis get tough. "The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror," said Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government and whose armed wing is the most feared of Iraq's many factional forces. Instead, Hakim asserted in a rare interview late last week, the United States is tying Iraq's hands in the fight against insurgents. One of Iraq's "biggest problems is the mistaken or wrong policies practiced by the Americans," he said. In more than an hour of conversation at his Baghdad home and office, Hakim denied accusations that the Shiite-led government's security forces -- with alleged involvement by his party's armed wing -- have operated torture centers and death squads targeting Sunni Arabs. He also renewed his call to merge half of Iraq's 18 provinces into a federal region in the oil-rich, heavily Shiite south, and he played down Iran's interests in Iraq, saying that the Shiite theocracy to the east wants only what the United States claims to want: a stable Iraq. During much of the interview, Hakim was critical of U.S. policies toward Iraq, though he acknowledged that U.S. forces must remain in the country as a "guest" of the Iraqi government while it builds its security forces. The Americans are guilty of "major interference, and preventing the forces of the Interior or Defense ministries from carrying out tasks they are capable of doing, and also in the way they are dealing with the terrorists," Hakim charged. Hakim gave few details of what getting tough would entail, other than making clear it would require more weapons, with more firepower, than the United States is currently supplying. He also urged the United States to take a tougher stand against countries harboring insurgents and their supporters, and called for faster trials of insurgent suspects. Running for office? His repeated assertion that the United States was being too weak against Iraq's insurgency, allowing attacks to mushroom, appeared to suggest that any future Iraqi government that included him would share his view. With Iraqis scheduled to vote Dec. 15 for the country's first full-term government since the U.S. invasion in 2003, some analysts predict that Hakim will come from behind the scenes into direct political contention. Until now, Hakim has opted not to hold office; the highest-ranking member of the Supreme Council in the current government is Adel Abdel-Mehdi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents. But as head of the Supreme Council, which was founded by exiles in Iran as an armed Shiite opposition group to Saddam Hussein, Hakim commands the largest bloc of seats in Iraq's transitional parliament. In addition, Hakim oversees the party's armed wing, formerly known as the Badr Brigade. Its fighters are widely feared for what even many Iraqi Shiites say are habits of torture and other ruthless tactics learned from Iranian intelligence and security forces. Now officially converted into a private security detail and political group, the renamed Badr Organization is widely alleged to control many command-level and the rank-and-file officers in the Interior Ministry -- police, commandos, intelligence agencies and other branches. The United States, at times openly distrustful of the Supreme Council's Iranian links and of its armed wing, took the allegations of Badr involvement in a secret Interior Ministry prison that was discovered last week seriously enough to publicly warn the government against allowing factional militias to control Iraq's security forces or ministries."

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT