Jump to content

What al-Quaida really wants


Recommended Posts

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,369448,00.html

This is just crazy.

quote:

The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half million Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

Especially this part.And the most scarying thing is that the terrorists are dead serious :/

They must be living in another world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I were the leader of al Qaeda, what I'd really want is for my adversaries to focus all their economic and military resources on someone else... like tin-pot dictators in the countries that are under non-Islamic rule so that I would be able to influence the new governments which rises to embrace Islam and actually become a real threat to my adversaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$ilk, your thoughts are one minute behind the other, relax man, you are all over this forum. Take a breath, compose, organize, post. No worries, this forum will still be here as you type.

You alrigh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I agree with. Most of the time it seems as if they are all about winning elections and accumulating power, all under the guise of what is "best for America". They haven't thought about what's best for America in decades. It's just a meaningless mantra that serves no purpose. It's kind of like using meditation to find inner peace. After a while it becomes simply a self serving technique. The peace is always there, one simply has to find it anew each time.

Kind of a strange analogy. Worked better in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed ÔÇô and with my time running out in this Senate and on this earth, I feel compelled to speak out. For I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not golden. It is yellow."

- Zell Miller (D)GA Retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

If I were the leader of al Qaeda, what I'd really want is for my adversaries to focus all their economic and military resources on someone else... like tin-pot dictators in the countries that are under non-Islamic rule so that I would be able to influence the new governments which rises to embrace Islam and actually become a
real
threat to my adversaries.

You have been listening to the MSM WAY too much, and have NOT been listening to our troops, half of the troops that come BACK from Iraq, are ready to turn around and go back.

Now, WHY WOULD THAT BE IF IT IS SUCH A FAILURE?

Also, Al Quaeda liked nothing more then Saddam to be in power, he helped finance them, allowed them access to terrorist training camps with Iraq, etc.

For Al Quaeda, Iraq has now taken them AWAY from their main attacks, and have concentrated them in Iraq, where 80% at least die.

We are kicking their butts in Iraq, for every soldier we lose, Al Quaeda and other terrorists in Iraq lose 10.

Iraq is indeed the terrorist Motel, the terrorists come in, BUT, they DON'T come out.

Which BTW was one of the strategies and reasons that the Bush administration did it.

Fight them there with TRAINED military personnel, then fight them here with "Law Enforcement" personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

You have been listening to the MSM WAY too much, and have NOT been listening to our troops, half of the troops that come BACK from Iraq, are ready to turn around and go back.

Now, WHY WOULD THAT BE IF IT IS SUCH A FAILURE?

My cousin volunteered to go right back. And based on what I know - many of our young men and women in uniform have less desire to carry out Bush's policy rather than having a sense of loyalty to their fellow soldiers and wanting to help them through this mess.

As my friend who was shot in the chest in Iraq told me, he believes we are doing good in Iraq - but that based on everything he saw during his full year there the improvements wouldn't last. He just returned a couple of months ago.

I'm not going to deny that perhaps we are making some positive developments in Iraq - for God's sake I hope the situation dramatically improves and Iraq stabilizes - but that doesn't mean this wasn't a strategic error and an unconstitutional policy on the part of the government.

quote:

Also, Al Quaeda liked nothing more then Saddam to be in power, he helped finance them, allowed them access to terrorist training camps with Iraq, etc.

Those ties are dubious and the intelligence community is divided on the issue. Saddam also had WMD's according to some intelligence, but that was the intelligence that Bush chose to trumpet instead of looking at the rest of the intelligence that disagreed.

quote:

For Al Quaeda, Iraq has now taken them AWAY from their main attacks, and have concentrated them in Iraq, where 80% at least die.

We are kicking their butts in Iraq, for every soldier we lose, Al Quaeda and other terrorists in Iraq lose 10.

Iraq is indeed the terrorist Motel, the terrorists come in, BUT, they DON'T come out.

Which BTW was one of the strategies and reasons that the Bush administration did it.

Fight them there with TRAINED military personnel, then fight them here with "Law Enforcement" personnel.

I thought it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or the capabilities to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or was it Freedom for the Iraqi people? Or was it any number of the other 'reasons' that have been manufactured by this administration?

Bottom line: This was Bush policy before 9/11 ever occurred. And it had less to do with terrorism than it had to do with using our military to increase American influence overseas - especially in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

You have been listening to the MSM WAY too much, and have NOT been listening to our troops, half of the troops that come BACK from Iraq, are ready to turn around and go back.

Now, WHY WOULD THAT BE IF IT IS SUCH A FAILURE?

My cousin volunteered to go right back. And based on what I know - many of our young men and women in uniform have less desire to carry out Bush's policy rather than having a sense of loyalty to their fellow soldiers and wanting to help them through this mess.

As my friend who was shot in the chest in Iraq told me, he believes we are doing good in Iraq - but that based on everything he saw during his full year there the improvements wouldn't last. He just returned a couple of months ago.

I'm not going to deny that perhaps we are making some positive developments in Iraq - for God's sake I hope the situation dramatically improves and Iraq stabilizes - but that doesn't mean this wasn't a strategic error and an unconstitutional policy on the part of the government.

quote:

Also, Al Quaeda liked nothing more then Saddam to be in power, he helped finance them, allowed them access to terrorist training camps with Iraq, etc.

Those ties are dubious and the intelligence community is divided on the issue. Saddam also had WMD's according to some intelligence, but that was the intelligence that Bush chose to trumpet instead of looking at the rest of the intelligence that disagreed.

quote:

For Al Quaeda, Iraq has now taken them AWAY from their main attacks, and have concentrated them in Iraq, where 80% at least die.

We are kicking their butts in Iraq, for every soldier we lose, Al Quaeda and other terrorists in Iraq lose 10.

Iraq is indeed the terrorist Motel, the terrorists come in, BUT, they DON'T come out.

Which BTW was one of the strategies and reasons that the Bush administration did it.

Fight them there with TRAINED military personnel, then fight them here with "Law Enforcement" personnel.

I thought it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or the capabilities to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or was it Freedom for the Iraqi people? Or was it any number of the other 'reasons' that have been manufactured by this administration?

Bottom line: This was Bush policy before 9/11 ever occurred. And it had less to do with terrorism than it had to do with using our military to increase American influence overseas - especially in the Middle East.


I would really like to know which nutso Bush hater got to you.

Every reason you have stated is total and absolutel nonsense.

YES, our military had plans for Iraq before 9/11, just as they have plans for invading Canada, nuking Taiwan, and other silly scenarios.

It is the militaries responsibility to have those plans available, in case they are needed.

The fact is, the intelligence community is NOT divided on this issue, EVEN the 911 report stated that there were ties between Al Quaeda and Saddam, maybe not with 911, but with MANY other operations, as well as financing, training etc.

Where you are getting your info, I have NO idea, but by taking out Saddam, and numerous OTHER things that we have done, we have broken the back of Al Quaeda, almost EVERY operation they have tried within the US has been thwarted, BASED on intelligence gathered from prisoners taken in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Less then 1800 soldiers have died in Iraq, less then 3/4 of those have been in combat, the other 1/4 are from accidents, natural causes etc. Bet you never heard that from the MSM.

Oh, BTW, there were 7 different reasons that we went into Iraq, WMD being at the BOTTOM of that list, can you name the other 6?

I doubt it, the brainwashing has taken a bigger effect then I thought.

We are in Iraq for our OWN defense, the founding fathers would have come to that conclusion as well, LOGIC is a good thing under these conditions, but you are spouting propaganda at a mile a minute, and it is pretty much all nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, I read everything. From the Wall Street Journal, to Worldnet Daily, to FoxNews, to CNN, to commentary - from Walter E. Williams, Michael Savage, and mostly Conservative outlets.

Much of what has angered me are reports coming out of shortages of money in rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure - yet Halliburton gets their checks cut on-time with bonuses of millions of dollars.

I am concerned for the Iraqi people. Not their 'freedom' or any number of jingoistic terms that justify the deaths. But I'm concerned about their livelihood, and what is happening.

I place most blame on the terrorists, and suicide bombers. But I place a lot of blame on companies like Halliburton, and priorities in the Bush administration.

Our military isn't the one who made the plans Jag... it was a bunch of post-Reagan Conservatives who cooked up an idea for using the military to "regime change" countries around the world in furtherance of American dominance in the 21st century.

It's called PNAC - and Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Don Rumsfield are charter members.

And the 9/11 report also stated far more extensive ties to al Qaeda directly linked to Iran. Far more reliable ties - including Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Iraq wasn't going to do anything. If Saddam was traced to anything he knew his reign would end. His 'diabolical plans' went no further than building palaces and living out his life in comfort.

Iran & North Korea are different stories. And I'll remind you that al Qaeda took years to carry out 9/11. By even Pentagon estimates - al Qaeda is growing.

Jag - there are a billion Muslims worldwide. If even 1/10 of 1% of them are extremists, that's 10 Million fanatics who have to die in order to kill them all.

And all the reasons we went into Iraq were listed in the declaration of authorization of the use of force. That doesn't mean any of them were Constitutional.

And if WMD were at the bottom of that list, why was it the subject of every speech from 2002 forward? Even Paul Wolfowitz stated that WMD's was the only reasoning for war that all of the cabinet members could agree on.

We aren't in Iraq to defend ourselves. Defending ourselves would be sealing the border, deporting militant Muslims, and taking the war to actual terrorists instead of wasting $Billions$ in an occupation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ÔÇö George W. Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

I do have to give him credit for being honest. There's a crapload of Bush quotes out there. I believe that we need to increase the troop numbers in Iraq, seal it's borders, and begin stabilizing the country. This p***y-footing around because it's politically convenient is a problem I have with Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen $ilk. Don't let Jag's blind patriotism get to you. You have a much clearer understanding of what's happening than most. From PNAC to justification of the War to the reasons our men and women wish to return, you've pretty much nailed it.

Keep it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, PNAC. I suppose you guys believe in Santa Clause, too...

Oh wait. I know, I know. "PNAC is real PNAC is real!" I hear you cry. It's a frickin' social club with all of 7 people in it. LOL, gimme a break! You people are starting to sound like that wack-job that went to Congress in the '90's to claim the U.S. gov't was using weather control to thin the population.

What's next, are you going to put on your fatigues and run around in the woods with the Michigan Militia?

PNAC + Illuminati + Council of Foreign Relations + Bush Adminmistration + New World Order= ARMAGEDDON!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Yep, PNAC. I suppose you guys believe in Santa Clause, too...

Oh wait. I know, I know. "PNAC is real PNAC is real!" I hear you cry. It's a frickin' social club with all of 7 people in it. LOL, gimme a break! You people are starting to sound like that wack-job that went to Congress in the '90's to claim the U.S. gov't was using weather control to thin the population.

What's next, are you going to put on your fatigues and run around in the woods with the Michigan Militia?

PNAC + Illuminati + Council of Foreign Relations + Bush Adminmistration = ARMAGEDDON!!!

The conspiracy crap really gets old, and half of the people that hate Bush, base it on such nonsense, the other 1/2 are just diehard Democrats.

Sad to watch really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and since we of course are attempting to tell them that no such conspiracy nonsense exists, we are probably in on it, and are somehow involved. Our job is to poo poo it, so that the conspiracy may continue unabated.

ARGH, nothing as frustrating as someone that HAS to believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all there in black and white. You guys mean to tell me that the stated goals of PNAC , the memo they issued to Clinton regarding Iraq and regime change and the fact that Bush's cabinet is stacked with their members is totally coincidental? I'd laugh too if you guys weren't so obviously thick headed and laughing at the disadvantaged is rude.

Regardless, Jag insists that Iraq is a glowing success and while there may yet be some good to come of it, the whole thing could have been executed WAY more effectively. It's more of a mess than a success at this point.

There's no conspiracy theorists here, just folks capable of looking at all the evidence and drawing some easy and obvious conclusions. Maybe you two should loosen the ties on that flag wrapped around your head get some blood flowing and see the situation from both sides. Better yet, stop buying those "support our troops" car magnets, hop on a plane and go fight yourselves it should be a cakewalk the way you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When 3/7 members of this "social club" are in the top positions of power in this country is when I see it as less coincidence than obvious.

They have brainstormed their own view of Pax Americana. And they are using our military and economic might in furtherance of their 'social clubs' goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please, BOTH of you.

Sounds like bilderberger and all that nonsense as well.

What about Skull and Bones? What about the illuminati?

Good grief, what about CFR? They have FAR more powerful members then the PNAC ever thought of having.

You guys are a trip and 1/2.

THere's a boogeyman over there, WATCH OUT!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes it so ridiculous is that you use a PUBLIC website as proof that something sinister and diabolical is afoot. If there was really some secret evil plan to take over the world, why in Heaven's name would they tell us?

quote:

There's a boogeyman over there, WATCH OUT!!!

ROFLMAO!

Ahem. I apologize for belittling your positions guys, but this is just too ridiculous to even consider. I also happen to think if more countries were run like America the world would be a better place. Does that make me a secret member? Man, I hope I learn the secret handshake soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Capn Crunch

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

What makes it so ridiculous is that you use a PUBLIC website as proof that something sinister and diabolical is afoot. If there was really some secret evil plan to take over the world, why in Heaven's name would they tell us?

quote:

There's a boogeyman over there, WATCH OUT!!!

ROFLMAO!

Ahem. I apologize for belittling your positions guys, but this is just too ridiculous to even consider. I also happen to think if more countries were run like America the world would be a better place. Does that make me a secret member? Man, I hope I learn the secret handshake soon!


If more countries were run like amerika, we'd be in sad shape indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me re-post the pertinent part of the definition of "troll", for your own edification:

"One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...