Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Hey, hawks! Can you help me out here?

The Rascal is a little confused on a few points concerning the war in Iraq, and I was hoping that you stalwart supporters of the war could help me out. Here's the problem:

President Bush has said that if we withdraw our troops from Iraq before they've finished the job, the "terrorists will follow us home." That suggests to me that our military campaign has got all the terrorists -- you know, all the al-Qaeda types -- preoccupied in Iraq and unable to free themselves up for mischief anywhere else, like here in America.


But I'm also told by experts on the subject that most of the al-Qaeda folks in this world are located in various far-flung locales and countries outside of Iraq. So, how does what we're doing in Iraq prevent these terrorists outside of Iraq from coming after us? By scaring them with our unswerving resolve? But aren't suicide bombers immune to fright? I mean, they're obviously not afraid to die.


I'm also told that most of the violence in Iraq amounts to sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shiites who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. I'm further informed that about 90 percent of al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners, and that their concerns are mostly domestic and that they'd still have their hands full dealing with their Shiite adversaries even after our troops left.


This theory that the terrorists would "follow us home" seems based on the idea that all or most of the anti-American terrorists in the world are pinned down in Iraq by our troops, as if the bad guys constitute one big army as in past wars, like WWI and WWII. But that theory makes no sense. It seems not to jibe with the facts.


Help me, patriots. Help me make sense of these inconsistencies.


While you're at it, perhaps you can argue against the increasingly plausible notion that the longer we are in Iraq, the more we are creating terrorists worldwide.


Thanks a lot. I knew I could count on you. (Cue the crickets.)

13 comments:

Mike S. said...

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

-Osama bin Laden, August 1996

We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson." Feb. 1998 - Bin Laden edict

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
-Osama bin Laden
In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

You think maybe he's kidding?

Anonymous said...

6 Charged In Alleged N.J. Terror Plot.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/13274813/detail.html?dl=mainclick

They are everywhere...Their marching orders come from the Middle East. I guess the old media failed to inform you of that fact.

The Rascal said...

Mike and Anonymous: If I follow your drifts, such as they are, you're confirming my point. Otherwise, you seem not to have addressed, at least not directly, the issues I raised. The questions remain: How does keeping our troops in Iraq forestall terrorism attacks in America? Hasn't our policy in Iraq only multiplied the number of terrorists worldwide?

Mike S. said...

When I was three or four years old my best friend was Harry, the neighbor. Harry was a year older and probably fractionally bigger and our families were good friends. Every once in a while we'd get into a fight and Harry would hit me and I'd run home crying to my grandmother. She was a tough old girl and she'd always send me back and would lock me out of the house until I not only fought Harry again, but until I won. I learned some great lessons from her, including that a show of strength could discourage further aggression.

If you read Osama's first quote, you see that he's using past U.S. retreats as an argument for further aggression against the U.S.

You and I can sit here and have a reasonable debate about almost any subject because we value reason as opposed to blind emotion. That is not the case with al Quaeda. The fanatics who make up al Quaeda are being motivated, purposely or not, by pure hatred of all things western. If they did not hate us for supporting Israel, or "occupying" the Arabian Peninsula, or invading Iraq, they would hate us and want to kill us for something else. The fact that we are unbelievers or kafir is enough. If you think that we are dealing with people who are reasonable in any sense of the word you're just plain wrong. Stay or go, they are going to try to terrorize us. At least by staying it is they, not we, who are on the defensive.

Anonymous said...

If you don't understand why buy now them you have no chance of understanding. Lets just cut and run AGAIN!

The Rascal said...

Anonymous: What the hell are you trying to say? Buy a dictionary, man.

UCrawford said...

Rascal,

You could also have attacked Bush's assertion that if we leave Iraq will turn into a haven for al-Qaeda...which is laughable considering that al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization that targets Shi'a and Kurds, the population of Iraq is overwhelmingly Shi'a and Kurd, and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria (all countries al-Qaeda opposes) would never tolerate an al-Qaeda run country on their respective borders.

The only people who buy Bush's b.s. are losers who are too lazy to do any actual research beyond what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh spoonfeed them.

P.S. Hey Mike S....so if Osama bin Laden is the real threat as your quotes indicate, why didn't Dubya send our army into Pakistan in 2003 (where he was hiding) instead of Iraq (where he wasn't)? Unless of course your grandma also taught you that the best way to confront one bully was to go beat up a different bully. Which doesn't seem like a very smart lesson...unless the point was it's a good thing to be an asshole who picks fights with random people. In which case there's probably a reason you got on Harry's nerves.

Mike S. said...

ucrawford,

Your right, you convinced me. I just can't argue with ad hominem logic like that.

UCrawford said...

Mike S.,

You still haven't explained your non-sequitur regarding bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks somehow justifying the Iraq invasion and occupation (since the president admitted that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein weren't working together)...so apparently rebuttals based on logical arguments aren't your strong suit either.

Mike S. said...

I'll explain that when you explain why it would have been a good idea to invade Pakistan.

UCrawford said...

Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden went after the assault on Tora Bora (when the Pakistani troops either failed to set a proper cordon, or intentionally let him through). Pakistan is where al-Qaeda's primary leadership are most likely hiding. Pakistan is where the Taliban's leadership are most definitely hiding...and it's where the Taliban have been running assaults against Afghanistan, using the border as a safe haven with the apathy and/or support of the Pakistani security forces (when I was there in 2003-2004 attacks against our border posts were conducted daily, as the Pakistani border service denied it was happening). These attacks continue largely unimpeded by Pakistan to this day.

The ISID (Pakistan's intelligence service) has long-standing operational ties to the Taliban, at least two of ISIDs commanders have voiced support for the Taliban. In 2006 the Pakistani government signed a peace treaty with the tribes permitting al-Qaeda forces to remain in Pakistan unmolested as long as attacks weren't committed inside Pakistan. And Pakistan has never willingly turned a critical high-level al-Qaeda or Taliban leader who was involved with 9/11. The people they've captured are generally fringe personalities whose usefulness to al-Qaeda had long since expired.

I'll also add that the July 7 2005 bombings in London were committed by operatives trained in Pakistan. Most of the Zawahiri and bin Laden tapes post-9/11 were suspected of being made in Pakistan. And the press is full of reports of al-Qaeda training camps within Pakistan's territory...available for anyone who's willing to expend some effort to research the situation instead of regurgitating the bullshit opinions that Bush feeds them.

So there's my justifications for invading Pakistan instead of Iraq, Mike S., let's hear your justifications for invading Iraq...a country that hadn't attacked anyone for 10 years, where bin Laden and al-Qaeda weren't hiding.

Mike S. said...

So you seriously want to invade a mostly land locked mountainous country who is nominally an ally and possesses nuclear weapons? Even the Pakistan government has never seriously considered trying to control the tribal areas in which bin Laden has been hiding. How would we get the United Nations, let along other Moslem countries, to agree to that? Wouldn't that be acting unilaterally?

Short answer, we invaded Iraq because we could.

I believe the original question was about why we should leave Iraq now. You need to accept the fact that the congress voted for the war and the president ordered the invasion. Whether we should or should not invade Iraq, or any country, has already been decided and we need to deal with the current situation not whine about prior decisions. Critics sound like petulant children when they keep complaining that Bush did or said this or that, rather than analyzing the situation as it now stands, and trying to arrive at a solution that is best for all concerned.

UCrawford said...

Nice job of ducking the question, Mike S., which we can probably take to mean that you have no defense for your position. I also like how you unintentionally validated my point about Pakistan by acknowledging that Pakistan's done nothing to hunt al-Qaeda, which would have been enough justification to take to the U.N. to make the case for invasion. But of course the invasion of Iraq wasn't actually about 9/11, it was about Bush's personal hangup with Saddam and his dream of forced democratization in the Middle East, (sarcasm on) since those "Moslems" [sic] apparently aren't capable of handling the freedom we've magnimously allowed them to have (end sarcasm).

"Best for all concerned"? Guess that pretty much proves that you're not a soldier who's serving in Iraq.

And I need to accept nothing, except that you're an idiot...as your weak arguments, poorly thought out positions and questionable grammar skills clearly indicate.