Mounting Al Qaeda threat in Pakistan, Afghanistan

[betchatoo]

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html?th&emc=th

For a couple of years several of us have said that the President has neglected the main war on terror, pursuing Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to pursue his own personal agenda in Iraq. It now appears that this strategy is biting us hard in the ass. Failing to concentrate our efforts on those who could (and most want to) do us harm has allowed them to rebuild strength. I fervently hope that this blunder does not cause any more tragedies of mass (or even minor) proportions.

[46zilzal]

Isn't that where the "bad guys" have been ALL ALONG?

Just because "Rummy" could not make his blitzkreig work there, "There are No good targets in Afghanistan!" does not matter.

As I have often heard: "If this were December 7, 1941, dubya would have gone after China."

[PaceAdvantage]

For a couple of years several of us have said that the President has neglected the main war on terror, pursuing Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to pursue his own personal agenda in Iraq.

Where are the attacks on the US mainland to support your theory? So far, the evidence (0 attacks since Bush started "pursuing his own personal agenda") supports what the President is doing....not your theory.

[betchatoo]

PA: If you think attacks on US soil are the only ones that effect us your incredibly naive or an old fashioned isolationist. If the latter you should disapprove of the war in Iraq anyway.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA: If you think attacks on US soil are the only ones that effect us your incredibly naive or an old fashioned isolationist. If the latter you should disapprove of the war in Iraq anyway.

They're not the only ones that affect us, but they are the ones that count the most, wouldn't you agree?

Calling Iraq a "War" is a bit of a stretch anyway, IMO. It's more of a glorified police action, as are all of these "War on Terror" maneuvers. War, in the traditional sense, does not exist in this case. And that's the main problem. Critics of this "War" are applying old fashioned metrics and expectations, but they are, in effect, trying to put a round peg into a square hole....it isn't ever going to fit!

[Tom]

PA - excellent point.
This is not a war in the sense WWII was one.

(Maybe if it WERE a war, we would better off.)

[46zilzal]

Where are the attacks on the US mainland to support your theory? So far, the evidence (0 attacks since Bush started "pursuing his own personal agenda") supports what the President is doing....not your theory.
Using that same illogical logic one could say that Jimmie Carter "made us safe" from all nuclear reactor accidents since only the ONE happened on his watch. COINCIDENCE in both cases: not cause and effect.

[Tom]

Talk about illogical logic!
That makes no sense at all.
Your immunity to reality prevents you from realizing we have not been attacked again becasue of very specific actions:

Selective wire tapping


Tough interogation practices


Water boarding
A huge price was avoided in exchange for minor penalties on bad people.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I don't think the President neglected Afganistan, although not all our might was nor needed to be focused on it. The devil there is the details on the ground - the firepower is there - the issue is where the bad guys are continually hiding - in caves, in Pakistan, among the 'innocents' and the resistors within Afganistan. This has proven to be the tough mixture for any country like ours that wants to fight nicely and try to lose the hearts and minds of the people on the ground whose country we're trying to build 'for them'.

I do think the media mostly neglected Afganistan, however. There was too much boring, good news, or boring no news-status quo. Just like the good things in Iraq have rarely been reported. Not like people are clamoring to hear good or status-quo news. After all, no one is talking about the recent 'treaty' approved with North Korea and the joint countries and the U.S. last week. No one has yet to discuss it on this forum either. Of course, we've had agreements with North Korea before, so I know I'll only believe them when I see their concrete actions.

[robert99]

Just as the Iraq occupation is not a war, nor are the "leaders" of Alqaeda of so much importance. They were important when the network was being set up but their independent cells are now everywhere. In UK, the terrorists that have attacked, killed and maimed within UK come from within our own communities. Alqaeda or their propoganda is behind a lot of the bombings / kidnappings and executions in Iraq and if anyone thinks that does not effect US citizens, servicemen and their families every day of the occupation then they have a very narrow view of the world.

[skate]

They're not the only ones that affect us, but they are the ones that count the most, wouldn't you agree?

Calling Iraq a "War" is a bit of a stretch anyway, IMO. It's more of a glorified police action, as are all of these "War on Terror" maneuvers. War, in the traditional sense, does not exist in this case. And that's the main problem. Critics of this "War" are applying old fashioned metrics and expectations, but they are, in effect, trying to put a round peg into a square hole....it isn't ever going to fit!

if you would explain to them, "its like putting a square hole into A Round peg" they could probably see the light.

it is the only answer that remains:bang:

[betchatoo]

They're not the only ones that affect us, but they are the ones that count the most, wouldn't you agree?

Calling Iraq a "War" is a bit of a stretch anyway, IMO. It's more of a glorified police action, as are all of these "War on Terror" maneuvers. War, in the traditional sense, does not exist in this case. And that's the main problem. Critics of this "War" are applying old fashioned metrics and expectations, but they are, in effect, trying to put a round peg into a square hole....it isn't ever going to fit!
If it spends like a war and it kills like a war, chances are...

[46zilzal]

If it spends like a war and it kills like a war, chances are...
When it isn't going too well things like "police action" become the title. Not calling this a war is, as many things about this war, delusional.

[Secretariat]

Calling Iraq a "War" is a bit of a stretch anyway, IMO.

What was the IWR for then if it was not a war?

[PaceAdvantage]

Wars have easily identifiable sides. Wars have actual battles. When was the last time there was a battle in Iraq that lasted more than a day?

[betchatoo]

Talk about illogical logic!
That makes no sense at all.
Your immunity to reality prevents you from realizing we have not been attacked again becasue of very specific actions:

Selective wire tapping


Tough interogation practices


Water boarding
A huge price was avoided in exchange for minor penalties on bad people.

Tom: What you call minor penalties, I call Constitutional rights. Fortunately it seems that even a very conservative based Supreme Court agrees. They have stuck down several of the policies and the administration has backtracked on others before they could be reviewed. It makes me want to paraphrase a saying from the sixties. Taking away liberty to protect freedom is like screwing for chastity.

[betchatoo]

I don't think the President neglected Afganistan, although not all our might was nor needed to be focused on it. The devil there is the details on the ground - the firepower is there - the issue is where the bad guys are continually hiding - in caves, in Pakistan, among the 'innocents' and the resistors within Afganistan. This has proven to be the tough mixture for any country like ours that wants to fight nicely and try to lose the hearts and minds of the people on the ground whose country we're trying to build 'for them'.

I do think the media mostly neglected Afganistan, however. There was too much boring, good news, or boring no news-status quo. Just like the good things in Iraq have rarely been reported. Not like people are clamoring to hear good or status-quo news. After all, no one is talking about the recent 'treaty' approved with North Korea and the joint countries and the U.S. last week. No one has yet to discuss it on this forum either. Of course, we've had agreements with North Korea before, so I know I'll only believe them when I see their concrete actions.
Steve: The fact is when we concentrated efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan we scattered the evil doers and made their communications difficult if not impossible. Rather than pressing that advantage and finishing them off, we went off on GW's mission from God, and have allowed Osama and his lieutenants to regroup. I really fear (and I hope I'm wrong) that this have given them the breathing room they need to plot another plan of mass destruction.

[Tom]

Tom: What you call minor penalties, I call Constitutional rights. Fortunately it seems that even a very conservative based Supreme Court agrees. They have stuck down several of the policies and the administration has backtracked on others before they could be reviewed. It makes me want to paraphrase a saying from the sixties. Taking away liberty to protect freedom is like screwing for chastity.

The water boarding we usd on Al "somekindofaquri" - the architect of 9-11...you really think this SOB murderer has constitutional rights? I don't grant him any rights at all. I prefer to focus on the rights of the people of LA - many of them American citizens - who did not die thanks to this SOB who was soaked and is still alive, unharmed today. I call that VERY minor.

As far as wire taps, name me one person - just one - who has arrested or convicted on a questionable phone tap.

[hcap]

" Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.

And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html

[betchatoo]

The water boarding we usd on Al "somekindofaquri" - the architect of 9-11...you really think this SOB murderer has constitutional rights? I don't grant him any rights at all. I prefer to focus on the rights of the people of LA - many of them American citizens - who did not die thanks to this SOB who was soaked and is still alive, unharmed today. I call that VERY minor.

As far as wire taps, name me one person - just one - who has arrested or convicted on a questionable phone tap.
Tom, I can't nor would I expect to be able to. With an administration this secretive any arrest based on an illegal wiretap would be presented as found by other means.

On the other hand, name one detainee of the more than 700 that have been held for over 5 years in Guantanamo that has ever stood trial (hint: there isn't ONE). In fact only 10 have ever been charged with doing anything illegal. Many more than that have been sent home cleared of any wrong doing having served up to 4 years in prison for nothing.

[Tom]

There have more than a few released from Club Gitmo who were later re-captured in the act of committing or planning terrorism.

And the administration doesn't try cases - judges - mosly lib judes do that. I doubt they could get away with presenting false evidence as to where they got the info.

Knowing we avoided massive deaths in LA thaks to "bobbing for truth" somehow makes those other things like "might","maybe, or "could" much more trivial.

[betchatoo]

There have more than a few released from Club Gitmo who were later re-captured in the act of committing or planning terrorism.

And the administration doesn't try cases - judges - mosly lib judes do that. I doubt they could get away with presenting false evidence as to where they got the info.

Knowing we avoided massive deaths in LA thaks to "bobbing for truth" somehow makes those other things like "might","maybe, or "could" much more trivial.
Tom:

I'd like to see the links on those former Gitmo detainees. I was unaware of it.

[Tom]

Bet....this was not recently - at least a year (?) ago.
I don't have any links, but I'll see what I can find on Google. There might some link on either O'Reilly or Savage's website. I know they were talking about it, bit I seem to think it was CNN where I first heard it....Lou Dobbs?
See what I can do tonight.

[betchatoo]

Thanks, Tom

[Tom]

I haven't really read thoroughly these specific ones, but they sound like what I saw a while ago.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/terror/main645493.shtml

http://www.searchlightcrusade.net/posts/1161533504.shtml

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003607.php

[JustRalph]

Tom, I can't nor would I expect to be able to. With an administration this secretive any arrest based on an illegal wiretap would be presented as found by other means.

On the other hand, name one detainee of the more than 700 that have been held for over 5 years in Guantanamo that has ever stood trial (hint: there isn't ONE). In fact only 10 have ever been charged with doing anything illegal. Many more than that have been sent home cleared of any wrong doing having served up to 4 years in prison for nothing.

yep, and yesterday the Supreme court upheld their detention.........based on a law written by congress. Assholes captured in other countries don't get the same rights as American Citizens...........tough shit!

[Tom]

It is ridculous to grant rights to non-citizens. They want rights, go home.
No rights at home? Change it - like we did.

[betchatoo]

yep, and yesterday the Supreme court upheld their detention.........based on a law written by congress. Assholes captured in other countries don't get the same rights as American Citizens...........tough shit!
It was a federal court, not the Supreme Court. Same head judge that supported the administration last time (and got overturned). This one looks like it's headed back to the Supreme Court.

[Tom]

Is that the same Supreme Court that put Bush in office? :rolleyes::lol:

[betchatoo]

Is that the same Supreme Court that put Bush in office? :rolleyes::lol:
No, it's actually a more conservative court. But still they have rejected several of the administration's policies.

On Gitmo you and I will continue to disagree. I see no justification in letting hundreds of people rot in jail because a few of them might be guilty. Would you feel the same if it was you sitting there? Or someone you cared about?

[Tom]

I don't think anyone I cared about would have been arrested in terrorist-controlled Afghanistan or Iraq. I suspect not many in Club Gitmo are people like you and I work with, or bowl with, or socialize with. I think there are reasons they are there.
But I agree - they should be looked at one by one, and enough time has passed to get goin on this. Just not in our courts. These - whoever they are - have not earned the right to avail themselves of our rights. We fought for them and pay for them - they do not deserve to be treated as citizens and they should have no rights under our constitution, just as no Canadian, Mexican, Frenchman, Irishman, Italina, yadda yadda should be - they are not citizens.

[JustRalph]

No, it's actually a more conservative court. But still they have rejected several of the administration's policies.

On Gitmo you and I will continue to disagree. I see no justification in letting hundreds of people rot in jail because a few of them might be guilty. Would you feel the same if it was you sitting there? Or someone you cared about?

Bet, this is why they should stay.......where they are.......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/terror/main645493.shtml

[betchatoo]

JR:

7 out of 146. That means at there could have been 139 innocent people who spent 4 years of their life in a prison. That's a lousy R.O.I.

[PaceAdvantage]

Bet, this is why they should stay.......where they are.......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/terror/main645493.shtml


They signed PLEDGES? Is this some kind of a freakin' joke? Holy shit batman! Who's idea was it that if they promise not to be bad again, they'll be set free??!?!?!?!?!?! :lol: :bang: