Welcome to PatsFans.com

Al Qaeda Chiefs Are Seen to Regain Power

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I know the self-serving line of righties is that liberals are unwitting allies of the terrorists, but not only does our Iraq adventure suggest that Bush's approach to the WOT is making the terrorists stronger, there's now evidence that Al Qaeda is actually growing stronger. The right-wing has actually jeopardized American security with their blind support for Bush and their one dimensional approach to the problem of terrorism.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

    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.

    American analysts said recent intelligence showed that the compounds functioned under a loose command structure and were operated by groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al Qaeda. They receive guidance from their commanders and Mr. Zawahri, the analysts said. Mr. bin Laden, who has long played less of an operational role, appears to have little direct involvement.
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,037
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23

    Seen this before the whole NW Pakistan thing also, this is a hotbed for extremists, madrassas and seems to be perpetuating the training of terrorists..
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    So are indicating should we invade a nuclear Pakistan to attack the Al Queda leadership?

    I would point out no attacks in the US, since 9-11 which virtually no one would have predicted.
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    He didn't say anything about invadint Pakistan. Isn't it funny how when your only tool's a hammer, every problem seems like a nail?
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13


    Well he did imply that this was a failure in Bush administration policy I wanted to know what he felt the solution was to the precieved shortcoming.

    What solution would you propose?

    BTW I don't feel it would be useful to invade Pakistan. It would destabilize the government who has been helpful (given the internal sympathies towards Taliban and Al Queda both within and outside the government.

    The government has never had control of the Tribal areas where Al Queda is hanging out, our influence therefore is very limited.

    Sorry if this doesn't fit your stereotypes. :p
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, you know me and my stereotypes, I'm always talking about filthy Muslims...

    I agree an invasion would be a bad idea. Invasions should be a course of last resort, otherwise it turns into a game of whack-a-mole. We go into Iraq, they pop up in Pakistan. Go into Pakistan? We'll aggitate more of them and they'll come up in Lebanon, or Syria. We need to use military force only when there are no other choices.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    OK that's a start how would you deal with Al QUeda and thier vision of Global Caliphate?
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I would try to physically protect targets as much as possible, gather intelligence about potential attacks, and put heavy pressure on governments in the Middle East to co-operate with us or face severe sanctions.

    Fighting terrorism is a joint cause for the west, we need to re-align ourselves with other countries that share our concern, and present a united front when we deal with countries that may turn a blind eye to Al Queda.

    Al Queda, by the way, is only a small part of the problem. Independant terrorists, working in small groups, are going to be a major headache for us, too.
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,199
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ratings:
    +361 / 1 / -9

    The murdering terrorists are getting stronger because the liberal Bush Hating democrats are making America weaker.
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    In essence you would wait to get hit and try to prevent or minimize the effects of attacks. That's nice.
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    We have created new opportunities for them. One, they would rather go after the Middle East than the U.S., so we can protect our homeland somewhat by engaging in constant war (and that's also great for the arms industry). Two, why should they attack us here, when they can kill us over there? They have killed 3,000 Americans so far, more than died on 9/11. Three , as they grow stronger, they become more of a threat to our homeland. Four, the fact that the haven't attacked the US since 9/11 shows that we spent $400 billion to fight a rag tag army. Certainly right after 9/11, even before we instituted any of our homeland security plans, they were unable to muster another attack. So, it appears to me that if we had not attacked Iraq, we still would have been able to protect ourselves, and not lost thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    They want it all. The US has been their stated target they declared war on us in the 90's guess you missed that. :rolleyes:
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Yes, that's why I pointed out how weak they were. After 9/11, they couldn't muster anything here even before we implemented tighter security. Amazingly, they can't sneak across the border and can't even mail packages. This is the terrorist organization that scared the righties so much? Since Bush's WOT, they have become stronger, but they are taking advantage of the chance we gave them to form a foothold in Iraq, and are now taking advantage of the fact that we are overextended in Iraq to reconstitute their organization and make it stronger.
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    So let me get this straight. They were attacking US interest and ultimately the US on a regular basis. since 9-11 and the administration aggressive campaign against them, no attacks in the US (which NONE of the pundits were predicting) , and now because of a NYT article indicitating they are trying to crawl out from under their rocks this means the WOT is a failure?


    :D :) :p
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's not what I read at all, and I don't care to retype what was perfectly clear the last time. I'll point to the second paragraph of what I said if you need a hint. No amount of flipness changes it.
  16. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    it's all he does... reform your own stance as he sees fit, arguing with himself in the process... he can't debate, he's a hack....
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    WE'VE LOST 3,000 SOLDIERS, spent $400+ billion, made Iran stronger, turned much of the world against us, brought forth all sorts of new terrorist groups, and have made Al Qaeda stronger. Furthermore, they attacked in the U.S. once under Clinton and once under Bush. It's obvious to me that he WOT is a major failure in that there's more terror now than ever.
  18. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    when do righties stop hanging their hat on this mantra? hey, there were no attacks here in the EIGHT years between the 93 WTC bombing and 9/11... by your logic, Clinton deserves kudos...

    back to reality: the Terrorists are extremely patient and rescillient .... Bush's 1984 of America has plugged a few holes, but nothing will deter them until we go into Pakistan and get the real enemy...
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,199
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ratings:
    +361 / 1 / -9

    When Bush's term is up and if a Dingobat Left Winger becomes president the Democrats will turn into a bunch of bloodthirsty war mongering dogs and head for Africa and start killing people over there, it will be "The Good War".

    Africa is the democrats favorite playground, African people are better than Iraqi people.

    General Pelosi, General Murtha, General Kennedy and General Clooney will be in charge of the "Good War".

    If the Killer Democrats want you to go and KILL IN AFRICA run to Canada or England (like Clinton did).
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,645
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    There wasn't 8 years between WTC I (which wasn't Al Queda, Although a Clinton Admin official did say that Iraqi Intel had a hand in it. I was referring to The Khobar Towers attack, Kenyan embassy bombing the USS Cole. all AlQueda attacks on American interest.

    Al Queda's network has been seriously compromised as a result of aggressive actions by America after 9-11.

    So yiou favor going into Pakistan?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>