Al-Qaeda gains from Iraq buttfuck

Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm

Al-Qaeda 'spurred on' by Iraq war
US forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with "iconic" targets, the report says
The occupation of Iraq has helped al-Qaeda recruit more members, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The influential group's annual report says the network has reconstituted itself after losing its Afghan base.

It adds that Osama Bin Laden's followers have set their sights on attacking the US and its close allies.

They would ideally like future operations to make use of weapons of mass destruction, it reports.

The institute quotes conservative intelligence estimates as saying that the group has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

Recent attacks in Spain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia show its renewed strength, it says.

The report finds the network's finances are in good order.

'Strategic nightmare'

The institute says the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers, while diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition.

It has split the US and its major continental European partners, leaving Britain - Washington's staunchest supporter - uncomfortably in the middle.

US forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with what the report calls its most attractive "iconic" target outside the US itself.

And it concludes that if Iraq were to become a failed state or revert to dictatorship, it would be a "strategic nightmare" for the West.

"It is key to regional security - and the stability of the international system - that the US and its allies get Iraq right," the report says.

The report also addresses the broader issue of relations between Islam and the West, saying the Bush administration did not fully appreciate that the 11 September attacks were a "violent reaction to America's pre-eminence".

To win hearts and minds, the report says, the appearance of American unilateralism needs to be tempered.
 

FeelGood

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Posts
17,794
jethrek said:
To win hearts and minds, the report says, the appearance of American unilateralism needs to be tempered.

Obviously didn't read much Machiavelli..

because there's a plan B that the author forgot to mention, which is, when you figure that being restrained is inefficient, just be thorough and beat the fuck out of anyone that looks at you funny until everyone understand not to fuck with you.

Basically, you say, screw nuclear bombs - instead, use our bombers to dump our toxic waste on their Saudi asses.

Instant nuclear death is jawdropping, but to die slowly watching you decompose before your eyes, and to watch your children decompose the same would be a good 30 minutes of hell that would feel like a lifetime...
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
EvilWasabi said:
Obviously didn't read much Machiavelli..

because there's a plan B that the author forgot to mention, which is, when you figure that being restrained is inefficient, just be thorough and beat the fuck out of anyone that looks at you funny until everyone understand not to fuck with you.

Basically, you say, screw nuclear bombs - instead, use our bombers to dump our toxic waste on their Saudi asses.

Instant nuclear death is jawdropping, but to die slowly watching you decompose before your eyes, and to watch your children decompose the same would be a good 30 minutes of hell that would feel like a lifetime...
Yes, and royally fuck up our own oil supply. Think oil is high now, how about when it reaches $11 a gallon. rilliant thinking, EW, you are going to send us ont he path of energy independance whether we like it or not. ;)
 

BlackSpy

Tsrgoihrea,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Posts
2,959
Indeed, that approach might work for getting first dibs on a juke box but in terms of global diplomacy it's a nonstarter.

bell512.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
galfordo said:
This is a bogus estimate. They reached this number by subtracting 2000 (number killed by our forces) from their starting numbers of 20K.

As much as some people may like to believe that Al Quaeda is growing stronger by the minute - there's just no credible evidence to support that. Maybe they do have "operatives" in over 60 countries - that just shows how fragmented they are. These "operatives" more than likely consist of stinky ass, half retarded bums holed up in shitty apartments somewhere.

Keep in mind that, before we went after them, they controlled the entire country of Afghanistan and were free to carry out coordinated training regimens and create large-scale plans. I'm sorry, but planning a nuclear attack over e-mail just doesn't cut it.

Yeah, they were all in the same country when Sept. 11 happened. Brilliant thinking there.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
jethrek said:
Yeah, they were all in the same country when Sept. 11 happened. Brilliant thinking there.

Where do you think the original planning took place dipshit?
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
galfordo said:
Where do you think the original planning took place dipshit?

Your response completely ignores my point. So they don't have one country. Guess what, when they planned the first world trade center bombing, they didn't yet have a solid country? You think they need a whole friggin country to plan an attack?
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
jethrek said:
Your response completely ignores my point. So they don't have one country. Guess what, when they planned the first world trade center bombing, they didn't yet have a solid country? You think they need a whole friggin country to plan an attack?

They don't need it, but having a place to make your plans - rather than being fragmented throughout the world - definitely helps.
 

TheBigBB

Formerly known as dmhawkmoon
Joined
May 5, 2002
Posts
6,152
I can't see how this report could be all that accurate either. I can see that maybe al-quaida is still a threat. No trouble seeing that. But how could they possibly be a worse threat now than they ever were? It makes no sense. What's the source of this info?
 

naitram

The Old Man
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Posts
1,153
galfordo said:
Maybe they do have "operatives" in over 60 countries - that just shows how fragmented they are.

That is fucking retarded. Boy am I glad you aren't in charge of our security. :oh_no:
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
naitram said:
That is fucking retarded. Boy am I glad you aren't in charge of our security. :oh_no:

Yeah, if I were in charge of US security, I'd split up our army into groups of three and put them in apartments throughout the world. Oh yeah, and I'd give up control of my home country .... :rolleyes:
 

neobuyer

Master of Disguise,
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Posts
8,083
Holy shit man! I got so wasted last night I went out and firebombed what I thought was a nest of Al Quida terrorists right here in the USA.

Turns out I was so fucking drunk I firebombed the display window of the East Pasadena 'Bed Bath and Beyond'- because I saw THIS graphic in the window:

Artwork.JPG


Son of a bitch! I vandalized a silverware display!
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
neobuyer said:
Holy shit man! I got so wasted last night I went out and firebombed what I thought was a nest of Al Quida terrorists right here in the USA.

Turns out I was so fucking drunk I firebombed the display window of the East Pasadena 'Bed Bath and Beyond'

Meh, as long as you're destroying something in or near Los Angeles, it's all good ;).
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
I wonder if this whole thing is being framed a little wrong.

I'd agree that Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan before and immediately after 9/11 -but that doesn't mean as much as it would with other terrorist groups like Hizbollah or Hamas (which is where I think too many people draw a comparison). Al Qaeda's strength is how independent its cells are (which was well known even before 9/11). The US made a correct move in trying to stop as many of its figureheads as possible in Afghanistan, but it by no means had any certainty that it would stop the organization. Obviously, we never caught bin Laden (although Bush did call it a "National Priorty" -its conspiciously disappeared off the radar... then we invaded Iraq). -however Al Qaeda may be a much more diffuse organization -essentially a rallying cry for all the crazed religous loonies joining on the kill-the-infidels bandwagon. I'm sure the responsible parties for the Madrid bombings claim to be allied or part of Al Qaeda, but I doubt its any more than name affiliation and a few meeting -it seems the agents of Al Qaeda (including the 9/11 terrorists) do most of the terrorist planning on their own. In that light, people saying their joining Al Qaeda are basically saying they're joining "the resistance" (albeit a stupid one).
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
3,583
Jethrek wrote Al-Qaida GAINS from Iraq buttfuck

hmmm...according to the article though:

"The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."


How is 20,000 minus 2,000 a gain exactly? Dumb ass.

Those college kids pulled those figures out of their asses anyway. There's no proof anywhere in that article on anything.


The influential group's annual report says the network has reconstituted itself after losing its Afghan base.

Influential group? To whom? No one ever heard of this group before.

It adds that Osama Bin Laden's followers have set their sights on attacking the US and its close allies.

LOL. No way. Excellent reporting bbc...excellent reporting.

Recent attacks in Spain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia show its renewed strength, it says.

Of course they leave out the fact that 2003 showed the least amount of terrorist activity since the 1960's.

And it concludes that if Iraq were to become a failed state or revert to dictatorship, it would be a "strategic nightmare" for the West.

And whats the best way to make Iraq a failed state? For the US to cut and run. The very same thing that most of the left, and the paleo-cons want us to do. Not even John Kerry wants to cut and run.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
"nfluential group? To whom? No one ever heard of this group before."


OMG, Gunstaer Hero, the ultimate authority, contradicts the BBC with no source or backing! Remember: neo cons always no more than anyone else, because they tell us so. ;)
 

dragonwillow

Ghost of Captain Kidd
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
1,664
Of course it's a gain.

If you have 20 dollars, suddenly lose 2 bucks, then start finding pennies on the ground, it's a gain.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
3,583
jethrek said:
"nfluential group? To whom? No one ever heard of this group before."


OMG, Gunstaer Hero, the ultimate authority, contradicts the BBC with no source or backing! Remember: neo cons always no more than anyone else, because they tell us so. ;)

pff..its not very hard to expose this article as bogus. Where are the credentials of the IISS? Where is the proof, the statistics, the studies, the methodology of how they came upon this 20,000 figure in the first place. The report cites no FBI, CIA, BI, or even French intelligence statistics and facts at all....Where's their proof? Where's their backing?

They have none...its just a guess, and they have as much credibility as you or I, when it comes to guessing the number of Al-Qaida operatives. But you are eating it up, hook, line, and sinker...just because 'they said so'...


Of course it's a gain. If you have 20 dollars, suddenly lose 2 bucks, then start finding pennies on the ground, it's a gain.

Oh jeebus, tell me your joking around. Read it again...it plainly says, they had 20, lost 2, and are at 18. It doesn't go into any more detail, yet further proof this report is a fraud. Don't expose yourself as a complete imbesol and try to defend an indefensible.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
GunstarHero said:
pff..its not very hard to expose this article as bogus. Where are the credentials of the IISS? Where is the proof, the statistics, the studies, the methodology of how they came upon this 20,000 figure in the first place. The report cites no FBI, CIA, BI, or even French intelligence statistics and facts at all....Where's their proof? Where's their backing?

They have none...its just a guess, and they have as much credibility as you or I, when it comes to guessing the number of Al-Qaida operatives. But you are eating it up, hook, line, and sinker...just because 'they said so'...
I nevr provide my links as the "ironclad truth". Try "food for thought".

Also, it's one thing to say, "I question how meaningful their figures are."

It's another to make a statement as stupid as "The IISS isn't an influential group". You pretty much flaunt your ignorance as to what the IISS is as a reason nobody should listen to them, instead of raising a meaningful argument. Yuo question their figures, but can't source better numbers, andneither of us of seems to have a copy of the full IISS report (I'm not sure they are available in full to the general public even), but a quick news summary means it must be bogus.

A weaker man than Gunstarhero might take the two seconds to look at the IISS and what they do, and at least figure out who they are before contradicting them. But not Gunstarhero. Gunstar hero has far more expertise than the entire IISS because...

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:rolleyes:
 

dragonwillow

Ghost of Captain Kidd
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
1,664
GunstarHero said:
Oh jeebus, tell me your joking around. Read it again...it plainly says, they had 20, lost 2, and are at 18. It doesn't go into any more detail, yet further proof this report is a fraud. Don't expose yourself as a complete imbesol and try to defend an indefensible.

"US forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with "iconic" targets, the report says
The occupation of Iraq has helped al-Qaeda recruit more members, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies."


The first fucking line of the fucking article. Learn to read you stupid cunt.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
3,583
jethrek said:
I nevr provide my links as the "ironclad truth". Try "food for thought".

Also, it's one thing to say, "I question how meaningful their figures are."

It's another to make a statement as stupid as "The IISS isn't an influential group". You pretty much flaunt your ignorance as to what the IISS is as a reason nobody should listen to them, instead of raising a meaningful argument. Yuo question their figures, but can't source better numbers, andneither of us of seems to have a copy of the full IISS report (I'm not sure they are available in full to the general public even), but a quick news summary means it must be bogus.

A weaker man than Gunstarhero might take the two seconds to look at the IISS and what they do, and at least figure out who they are before contradicting them. But not Gunstarhero. Gunstar hero has far more expertise than the entire IISS because...

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:rolleyes:

So...who exactly is the group influential to then? The bbc report just says they are influential. I asked to whom? No answer of course.

I don't need to source any numbers. Of course, I could just spout out nonsense and made up guesses like the IISS did...it would be the same thing. Still haven't seen how they got their data...how does a group come up with this number in the first place? Do they have top-secret operatives within the terrorist ranks thats taking a head count? Or do they just randomly ask the so-called arab street if they work for al-qaida?

The actual number of Al-Qaida operatives could be more, or it could be less. Whatever it is, that little tidbit from IISS doesn't really prove or solve anything. It's hilarious you demand from me proof that its wrong, when the IISS itself hasn't proved to anyone that it's correct in the first place. And OMG...they have an official website? asl???!!!

I wouldn't go too far in calling me ignorant...your the one who thinks the lesser number is a greater number.


[q]"US forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with "iconic" targets, the report says
The occupation of Iraq has helped al-Qaeda recruit more members, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies."[/q]

How the fuck does that statement prove that a loss of 2,000 in total Al-Qaida membership, is a fucking gain? Tell me dammit!! Here let me repost what the IISS also said since you have your blindfold on:
"The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."

So...they still haven't said how many they have recruited...because they don't know...all they think they know is that there are 18,000 right now...thats a LOSS...not a gain. I'm getting my info from the same report you guys presented us with...sorry it backfired in your face.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
3,583
ok jethrek since you asked soooo nicely.

Here's last years IISS report , which spouts almost verbatum the same fucking data as this years report!
They have captured or killed 10 "senior leaders" as well as some 2,000 rank and file members, the institute says. That left a "rump" leadership of around 20 and some 18,000 jihadists who had been through al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan....from article May 14, 2003.

HAHAHA!!! Ain't that some shit huh? Its exactly the same as last year, yet this years report is supposed to be read as some kind of huge boost in membership?

What about this Jan.8th,2004 report from the Economist that says 3000 Al-Qaeda have been dealt with?
The invasion of Afghanistan denied al-Qaeda its sanctuary. More than two-thirds of its known senior leadership, say the Americans, have been captured or killed. Globally, more than 3,000 al-Qaeda operatives have been (as the Americans put it) “incapacitated”. Terrorist cells have been disrupted across Europe, and some previously recalcitrant countries seem finally to be co-operating in the hunt.

Doesn't exactly match with numbers from IISS, and it doesn't exactly help paint a picture that Al-Qaeda is pwning right now. The fact that this years IISS report is the same as last years should tell you jethrek, that the report is indeed bogus. I mean, are the IISS employees even working, or do they smoke weed all year and then in May, they pull up the archives, slap a current date on the report and give it to the press?
 
Top