Welcome to PatsFans.com

Article on the 'Godfather' of Islamic Terrorism

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jun 27, 2006.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Here is an article on the intellutical mentor of Arman Zawahiri, OBL's mentor.

    link: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15781

    Small excerpt from a long article. It is valuable to understand where the enemy is coming from. IMO this take on ISlam is being funded in a big way by the Saudi's who have spent 100B+ on madresas and mosques worlwide spreading the Whabbi sect's interpation of Islam.


    Another article
    link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/opinion/main1741097.shtml

    Again long article worthwile read.
     
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,710
    Likes Received:
    763
    Ratings:
    +2,024 / 44 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    Good Post Patsfan13. 2 or 3 years ago I made a few threads here saying that the war on terror is our responsibility because we all live here...we are the hated. I went on to say that it doesn't matter if you are left or right, e live here so we are part of this.

    Some will put themselves on a higher plateau and say it's Bush...it's not me. But we use the gasoline and the energy, we watch the shows and movies, we listen to the music...we choose to stay here so we are part of it.

    To take it a step furthur...Muslim families who live over here will drive their kids to soccer while the kids watch a DVD in the back. The parents may be good Muslims but it is near impossible for them to live like these people over here....so they are targets also because they are viewed as sinners.

    Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia ... all the non-hardcore countries are sinners also and will be dealt with in the future if possible...we are just more important at the moment because fighting us helps their recruitment.

    All that said...i still fault Bush for many things. Yes, at some point the war will have been faught anyways...I would have prefered a more traditional approach to resolving the problems...including Saddams removal.

    Some here say we create these terrorist monsters that like to behead people and kill innocent civilians. These monsters have been out there for at least 1500 years, They have been doing the same thing we see for a very, very long time...because in their eyes, sinners deserve death .

    Again..good post PF13.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2005
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    If you bother to read the article you will see these folks have been at war with us since the 1940's.
     
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Well I have posted links showing that Iraqi SS (Ramsey Yousef IIRC. who was later caught inthe Phillipines plotting to blow up 14 US Airliners, again in the 90's) was involved with the first WTC bombing in the 90's (before GWB) the information sourced was written by a person who was part of the Clinton admin. So you are wrong.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2005
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    Ramsey Yousef was Iraqi? Web searches turn up allegations (and no proof) that Yousef was working with Iraq -- but nothing definitive on place of birth, and also nothing definitive on an Iraqi link.

    But this has been part and parcel of the plan for quite some time, to link terrorism with Iraq, so that Bush II can go in and finish Bush I's war. The problem is, the casus belli of 1992 has evaporated, so he needed a new one. From all reports, he seemed to have fabricated them.

    PFnV
     
  6. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    It should be obvious by now that Patsfan13 is on a desperate mission to find justifications for invading Iraq and for sending those 2,510 American boys to their deaths.

    First it was those 500 "newly-discovered" WMDs.

    Then, it was those "newly-found" Iraqi manuals that was recently translated by "newly-hired" Arabic interpreters that purportedly linked Al-Queda to Saddam Hussein.

    Next, it is the "newly-discovered" obscure internet link to some right-wing websites that claim Youssef Ramsey is an Iraqi.

    My question to Patsfan13 is: Does it matter anymore??.

    It is too late.

    2,510 American boys are already dead and nothing will bring them back.

    Saddam is already in jail and will be sent to the gallow soon.

    It does not matter anymore if we find WMD or not.

    Give it up.

    .
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Here is the link again, the author BTW was a Clinton campiagn advisor in 1992 and later a part of the Clinton admin as a terrorism expert.

    linkhttp://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

    Much more in the article of course. Is the Clinton administration assumed to be part of the VRWC?

    BTW another Golden oldie about WMD leaving Iraq before the war this from the UN:

     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Yes Mikey it does matter now. Liars should not be allowed to rewrite histroy and distort facts as the Left is attempting to do in an attempt to see America lose ont eh WOT to advance their political agenda.

    We owe it to those defending this country and especially those who have paid the price by being wounded or killed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2005
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    From Your Website...

    In other words,

    1. Ms. Mylroie thinks a case can be made, and sets out to make it, that Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi agent -- although she herself is not at all sure. She does believe, however, that it might be in our interests to make this case.

    2. She discounts the danger of Islamic Fundamentalists, thereby emphasizing the "danger" of agents of Iraq in America -- as opposed to the likes of Al Qaeda. You will notice that she sees them as mutually exclusive identities, which makes a good deal of sense, since Saddam, whatever his evils, was a secularist. Al Qaeda et al. had little use for Saddam, or vice versa, throughout the 90s.

    So, Clinton brought her in for information on Iraq during the 1992 election campaign -- she did not, however, work in the Clinton white house. Essentially, she seems to have helped him write tougher Iraq speeches, and seems to feel betrayed at Clinton's less aggressive Iraq overthrow policies (than Bush I's.)

    In other words, she spends a lot of her time saying the first Bush really wanted to promote Saddam's overthrow, but that Clinton was not working hard enough to do so.

    Context helps a lot with statements such as the ones you emphasize -- never an operative in a Clinton government, used for her "tough on Iraq" rhetoric then discarded, an academic continues her neocon perspective on the dismantlement of Iraq. This is not man-bites-dog stuff.

    Furthermore, she feels Yousef might represent a danger to America yet, if and only if he is an Iraqi agent. If he's an Islamic fundamentalist, well, he's a bit of a pest, but tolerable.

    Are you beginning to see a pattern?

    I am. But thanks for playing.

    PFnV
     
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14


    The article was written in 1996 years before GWB was in the White House. Al Queda didn't start showing up in attacks in against America until later in the 90's

    Basically your going to ignore anything that doesn't jube with Bush lied people died. Thanks for playing.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    So you're saying you posted something that was clearly wrong, but understandably so because it was written 10 years ago? What exactly is the relevance of this article supposed to be? And is your contention now that Al Qaeda (one spelling suffices for me, you should look into that...) ...had nothing to do with the first WTC bombing?

    Interesting and creative perspective.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    It wasn't 'clearly wrong then and it isn't now, except for 'progressives' trying to deconstruct history for their political purposes.
     
  13. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Patsfan13,

    I don't understand why you keep dredging up old news articles and keep posting links to right-wing web sites to find justifications for invading Iraq and sending those 2,510 American boys to their deaths.

    It is too late now to be looking for reasons for invading Iraq.

    Those Americans soldiers are dead.

    Finding 1 WMD is not going to bring them back alive.

    Proving that Ramsey Yousef is an Iraqi citizen is not going to bring them back to life.

    It is too late.

    Give it up.

    .
     
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    I would point out that 2 articles mentioned above 1 is from cbs news hardly a right wing website. The other article is not about the war in Iraq, it is about the history and origins of the Islamist movement. Neither article is very partisan nor do they have an axe to grind about the Iraq campaign.

    The issue of Iraq was raised by one of the comrades, since he was capable of looking at terrorism outside the realm of politics.

    My weakness is not staying on topic and responding to the noinsnese of others.

    Did you read either articel?
    Do you have a comment on the articles rather than the current political situation?
     
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    No, let's stick with this.

    Do you:

    1) AGREE with the author of this article, or
    2) DISAGREE with the author of this article?

    To sum up, she believes:

    1) That Islamic fundamentalists posed little or no threat to the U.S.,
    2) That it is important to make a case that Ramzi Yousef is Iraqi, whether or not it is true, and that
    3) IF Iraqi agents are in the U.S., THEN there is a credible threat to American security (as distinct from Islamic fundamentalists.)

    YOU posted the article - do you believe it or don't you?

    PFnV
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    The articles I was refering to in post #1 the topic of the thread were both written by men. I will assume you are refering to the other article showing an Iraqi SS link to the first 9-11 attack.


    I had the impression that the Iraqi's were working with Islamic fundamentalist. Her article mention IIS being the brains and using the Fundamentalist.
     
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    I gotcha. So, even though it was a speculative "think piece," you favor some of her speculations over others.

    Since it's the two men you are most interested in, rather than insist that you follow or defend her logic, I'll consider her secondary. We do know she is wrong on at least some of her assumptions, after all, and the others are not much more likely to stand the test of time.

    Along the same lines, it's interesting to read the CIA briefs the president got regarding the "weapons programs" and the "Al Qaeda links." I remember reading some of the materials which actually said, that Saddam Hussein has minimal contacts with Al Qaeda, but that one could not rule out his "using" them as unconventional "delivery systems" for whatever weapons he possessed, were he attacked. This turns out to be exactly the case, only they became "delivery systems" after Saddam's defeat, and without allying with Saddam.

    The CIA analysis boils down to a "glass half empty glass half full" phenomenon:

    1) If we do not attack Saddam, although there is no real link to Al Qaeda, the potential continues to exist that he might form a link to Al Qaeda, were we to attack him.

    2) If we do attack Saddam, the likelihood exists that he will form a relationship with Al Qaeda.

    The reality was that we did attack Saddam, and although he didn't form a relationship with Al Qaeda, Iraq is now an Al Qaeda base of operations.

    Al Qaeda and Saddam were not allies. In this particular case, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" just did not kick in. Saddam was gone before Al Qaeda had any significant presence in Iraq. There would be no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" under Saddam -- he had never hosted an Islamist group bent on overthrowing the secular Arab states, and he had fought a long and bloody war against Iran (with U.S. help,) specifically to preserve his Baathist (Arab Nationalist/Stalinist organizational model) revolution, in the face of the Islamist revolution in Iran.

    You know this.

    It would be like Stalin working hand in hand with a militant right wing Christian-based militia, offering them resources on Russian soil, on the premise that both were anti-American -- even though the militia specifically called for the destruction of both the superpowers.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Not necessarily, I think Al Queda emerged as a threat in the later 90's looking at the US Embassy bombing, the USS Cole attack and other Al Queda attacks in the late 90's. At that poit in the 90's Al Queda had a much lower profile. Here are the focus of the article:
    I found her raising the points of : The involvement of Iraqi Intel and the problems cause by the wall of seperation between FBI, NSA and CIA as an issue 5 years before 9-11. It also demostrated a willingness of Saddam to work closly with Islamic fundamentalist to attack the US, xomething constantly denied by the left.


    You attempt at setting a strawman is duly noted.

    I didn't know that CIA published presidental breifings for public consumption, do you have links, or is this speculation about what the breifings said?

    I will respond to the points below, but I can;t vouch for their accuracy. Are their links for the points below?
    Not sure what a 'real' link is, when was this conclusion reached? I wonder how the CIA feels now in view of the translated Iraqi documents that show a link?

    How much of this is the CIA in CYA mode over their scrwewups before 9-11 (like other bureaucrats trying to avoid blame)?

    See above, evidence is that the 'link was present. Zarqwai was set up and doing business in Iraq BEFROE the war, moreover Sadam was recuiting suicide bombers to attack America in March 2001 (see the links to the Iraqi documents I have published on this site.)

    This last bit is your set of assumptions that are incorrect. The CIA made a lot of mistakes before and after 9-11. This BTW is the nature of Intel work, we had few assets on the ground.

    I would also point out that many times the bureaucrats (in this case the CIA) feel they run the goverment rather than the elected officals (in both the legislative and executive branches). There seem to be a number of leaks coming from the CIA from those that disagree with administration policy.

    How about the article linked in post #1 of this thread, that speaks to a much broader clash of civilizations between the West and Islamist?
     
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    Nope, this isn't "speculation" or "backpeddling after 9/11." I came across it while researching for another resident of your Magic Kingdom, regarding the question of whether Bush knew he had "bad intelligence." (We have a thread hereabouts with clips of both Condi Rice and Colin Powell saying earlier in 2001 that Saddam had no such weapons, by the way. Have a look through -- your perspective will no doubt be appreciated. When I saw it earlier today, none of our local righties had developed the spin to explain the evidence yet.) At any rate, I'll see if I can get you a web link for the CIA stuff.

    I know you fervently believe there's an Al Qaeda/Iraq link, or at least very much would like to. However, as you can see from your own source, what you really have is an enormous amount of energy going into showing what was not there, prior to 2003 (an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq.) And once again, you know and should acknowledge you know that Zarqawi was unrelated to Al Qaeda prior to our invasion (after which he allied his group to OBL's). In fact, he was on nobody's radar until the Daniel Pearl murder.

    FYI, to create (or "set up") a strawman (I take it that's what you mean by "setting a strawman",) is to argue against one's own creation, rather than the arguments of one's adversary. Since you posted the link, the "strawman" is a misapplied concept.

    Regarding assets on the ground, the West had quite an impressive infrastructure in Iraq, prior to the hasty invasion of the country. UNMOVIC, to be precise. By the way, Blix said there was compliance and a sense of urgency on Iraq's part -- how come Blix didn't "know" there were WMD, but Bush "did"? How come Condi and Colin said our intelligence said no WMD in 2003, but later in the year made speeches about the grave danger of WMD? How come the standard righty excuse for the "failure of intelligence" is now that "nobody knew they didn't have them?"

    And why did (and does) Bush consistently present as the condition of peace, the logical impossibility of proving a negative, rather than assume that if one accuses one's adversary of a bad act, one should have some proof???? Once he started the "prove you don't have them" rhetoric, what did he think the result would be?

    Again, the source we've talked about specified that IF Iraq was behind the first WTC bombing, THEN the U.S. has a problem, and discounted the possibility the U.S. would have a problem from Islamic Fundamentalists. Her point of view is clear: she is an expert on Why Iraq Is The Worst Thing In The Universe. As to your posting a 10-year old paper with faulty conclusions, that is your lookout. Don't blame me when what you think is brilliant analysis looks bad when you get to the fine print.

    We'll get to your other links next - they actually do sound quite interesting. I think it's probably best from your point of view to let this particular link die, but if you want to continue to trumpet its virtues, knock yourself out.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  20. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,489
    Likes Received:
    505
    Ratings:
    +1,112 / 16 / -9

    Well that was an interesting jaunt. I've read through the National Review article, which was at least within the mainstream of debate. Then I read your blogger from "The National Anxiety Center," Alan Caruba.

    Mr. Caruba's opinion piece focuses on one glaring, fundamental error: he has confused Qutb with the mainstream of Islam. I'm not surprised, given his identifying blurb ("The National Anxiety Center,") and the fact that the page his screed appears on is festooned with fringe icons like Coulter (she appears no less than four times on this page, counting book jackets.) It is not news that Qutb is an Islamist radical -- it would be news if, as Caruba says, Qutb explains "al Qaeda, Wahhabism, and the Islamic revolution it is your obligation to resist for the sake of all mankind." It would also be news if, as Caruba implies, Qutb spoke for all Islam.

    To quote extensively from Qutb, and promote him as the foremost practitioner or ideologist of Wahhabism, is simply an error. To paint him as the father of al Qaeda's evils is absolutely legitimate. I personally do not like bad analysis and factual error; this is the most glaring that can really be pinned on Caruba, but I also think he's aiming to paint all Islam with this brush.

    As I said, this is Caruba's principle error, his reason for writing the article: to trot out the worst of Qutb's work, and claim it is the belief shared at least by Wahhabists (such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [who have enough ideological problems without being branded Qutbists,]) and at most by the entire billion-strong Muslim community. To be brief: Qutb came out of Salafism, which was influenced by Wahhabism. There is disagreement within Salafism whether the Saudi State is legitimate. Qutb is "disowned" even by many Salafis. (For more on Wahhabism and Qutbists, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism)

    A lesser factual error is in the following:

    First of all, the Muslims were finally evicted from the kingdom of Grenada in Southern Spain in 1492, not 878.

    Secondly, though the Muslims did "suffer" the Crusades from 1095 to 1291, they did win, so it stands to reason that Christendom is more afflicted by defeat in that series of wars than Islam is by victory.

    Thirdly, Mr. Caruba does not even mention the true disaster suffered by Islam during that time period, the Mongol invasions. These are much more of a key to Islam's subsequent development than the Crusades, a fringe skirmish in Muslim history in comparison. Islam's only fighting chance against the Mongols was for the Arabs to ally with the Turks to fight them off -- and eventually to fight under the Turks' banners. From that point forward, Muslim history was the history of the Sultanate, not the Caliphate, and Arabs were ruled not by pretenders to spiritual authority, but to temporal authority.

    But that moment in history is lost on Mr. Caruba, who feels that the temporary losses of Acre, Tyre, and Jerusalem are the linchpins of the Islamic mind.

    Finally, as to the "Muslims of that region [being] locked in ignorance and oppression," it's a fine argument, just not for the middle ages. Consider your European history of that time period, if you know it.

    We can discuss the actual "clash of civilizations" further if you like. I'll say right now, I am on the fence about it. I do think Islam, like Christianity, lends itself to radical interpretation, and I do think we'd all be better off without religion coming into play in statecraft, war, or the civil sphere. But the world seems set on doing God's will, so I think we'll need to find a more civilized way to "clash", with the religious frameworks of Islam and Christianity in the background.

    Others prefer to ally themselves with the likes of Qutb and Bin Laden, and declare holy war. It is the nature of the beast. There cannot be a cultural clash without two cultures.

    There are, indeed, two cultures here: makers of holy war, and makers of peace.

    With whom do you ally?

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>