Senetors Big Mouth

[Biggles]

J2

You may well be right, although in that region Saddam was probabaly the least hospitable to any organisation with an allegiance not directly connected to him (largely due to his somewhat paranoid personality one suspects).

What always beggers belief, at least as far as I am concerned, is their very ability to recruit. On paper one would not give credence to 5 people joining*, but, it is said, OBL trained over 50,000 in his camps. The Shi'ite cleric Sadr likewise attracts recruits in the thousands. I fear this could drag on for years.





* Then again I could never see the attraction of having a glass of beer with the Rev. Jones yet he attracted a disturbingly large number of people to his farewell party.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4+12 May 2004 - 21:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 May 2004 - 21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@12 May 2004 - 14:00

I think the connection between Saddam and AQ is very weak. The fairly large AQ related Islamic extremist organisation that was on the Iranian/ Kurdish border was beyond his reach and more than the Kurds could deal with by themselves. This organisation is now spread through Iraq. Saddam&#39;s security had a good idea who many were (which is why they were holed up in the mountains) but most of that was lost in the orgy of violence and looting of last year. It is unlikely the Ba&#39;athists would tell us now; even if they did spend years trying to stamp them out themselves.

I think this is the crux; that the connection was or was not strong is of no real consequence-that the general atmosphere was one of overall hospitality to terrorists/terrorism, regardless of any group&#39;s allegiance, suffices for relevant purposes.

A state of mild antagonism between Saddam and Al Qaeda probably wouldn&#39;t have been sufficient to preclude what we now see; it may have only been something that existed between Saddam and bin Laden, we may never know, and at this point, does it even matter?

It&#39;s a mess no one could have predicted, not even the terrorists, I don&#39;t think.

They seem to realize they are fighting for their survival; this struggle could out-consume Al Qaeda&#39;s ability to recruit.

In any case, I feel a denouement of sorts is in the near offing.

Time will tell. [/b][/quote]
j2k4,

Forgive me, but what planet are you living on?

For years, they had to confine recruitment to the Middle East.. quite often underground.


Now, they feel strong enough to recruit openly in both Europe and the USA...and the get away with it as they now have friends there.

Recruitment for Islamic Terrorist Organisations has never been so high.

They can now fight almost openly in Afganistan, Israel and Iraq... (and Al Queda spent a decade bombing Iraq from the Ground, while the US & UK bombed from planes, it was no "slight dislike" they had for each other as you well know)

The Coalition response is such that even passive Iraqi&#39;s that hated Saddam, are now openly rebelling in places.


What evidence do you actually need as to how strong these policies are making these organisations?

Will you be satisfied when they actually get a nuke?

[j2k4]

Quote: Rat-Faced:

j2k4,

Forgive me, but what planet are you living on?

For years, they had to confine recruitment to the Middle East.. quite often underground.

Now, they feel strong enough to recruit openly in both Europe and the USA...and the get away with it as they now have friends there.

Think of it this way, Rat:

They are recruiting in the E.U. and the U.S. because they must; they need bodies so badly the mid-east proper can&#39;t supply them fast enough.

The former have always (especially in the last few decades, owing to immigration) been "recruitable", but now they are being sought out, called home, however you want to refer to it, to join the cause: There is an actual WAR going on, and they are needed at the front.

It may even be that one of the reasons we have not seen further terrorist attacks on the home soil is that most of them have vamoosed to Afghanistan and Iraq, or other mid-east locales; who knows?

Recruitment for Islamic Terrorist Organisations has never been so high.

Correct, for the above reason.

They can now fight almost openly in Afganistan, Israel and Iraq... (and Al Queda spent a decade bombing Iraq from the Ground, while the US & UK bombed from planes, it was no "slight dislike" they had for each other as you well know)

Though, as I said, they seem mighty comfortable in Iraq.

Quantify relations between the two however you like, whatever the situation was, coexistence with your average Arab is no less feasible; apparently a "street" Iraqi either doesn&#39;t share Saddam&#39;s aversion to the fundamentalists/terrorists, or, more likely, doesn&#39;t possess the capacity to resist them.


The Coalition response is such that even passive Iraqi&#39;s that hated Saddam, are now openly rebelling in places.


What evidence do you actually need as to how strong these policies are making these organisations?

Will you be satisfied when they actually get a nuke?

What is it exactly that makes you think they are any closer/further to/from nukes now than they were before?

Given the "Oil for Food" fiasco, the likely sources of such weaponry would be a bit paranoid about transacting with terrorists, as the "Eagle Eye" is watching everybody just now.

Nobody wants that finger pointed their way, even if the finger belongs to the U.S.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@13 May 2004 - 02:04
Think of it this way, Rat:

They are recruiting in the E.U. and the U.S. because they must; they need bodies so badly the mid-east proper can&#39;t supply them fast enough.

The former have always (especially in the last few decades, owing to immigration) been "recruitable", but now they are being sought out, called home, however you want to refer to it, to join the cause: There is an actual WAR going on, and they are needed at the front.

It may even be that one of the reasons we have not seen further terrorist attacks on the home soil is that most of them have vamoosed to Afghanistan and Iraq, or other mid-east locales; who knows?

Recruitment for Islamic Terrorist Organisations has never been so high.

Correct, for the above reason.

They can now fight almost openly in Afganistan, Israel and Iraq... (and Al Queda spent a decade bombing Iraq from the Ground, while the US & UK bombed from planes, it was no "slight dislike" they had for each other as you well know)

Though, as I said, they seem mighty comfortable in Iraq.

Quantify relations between the two however you like, whatever the situation was, coexistence with your average Arab is no less feasible; apparently a "street" Iraqi either doesn&#39;t share Saddam&#39;s aversion to the fundamentalists/terrorists, or, more likely, doesn&#39;t possess the capacity to resist them.


The Coalition response is such that even passive Iraqi&#39;s that hated Saddam, are now openly rebelling in places.


What evidence do you actually need as to how strong these policies are making these organisations?

Will you be satisfied when they actually get a nuke?

What is it exactly that makes you think they are any closer/further to/from nukes now than they were before?

Given the "Oil for Food" fiasco, the likely sources of such weaponry would be a bit paranoid about transacting with terrorists, as the "Eagle Eye" is watching everybody just now.

Nobody wants that finger pointed their way, even if the finger belongs to the U.S.

They havent slowed down their normal terrorist activity at all... ask the Spanish for starters. The "Home Soil"...maybe that speaks volumes to some.... "Im all Right Jack", no wonder traditional US allies populations are turning against them as well as the traditional enemies

The "War" in Afganistan & Iraq are "extras"... they wouldnt be so open if they werent so strong at the moment. They are cowards by there very nature, sneak attacks etc.

Every death of a civilian, every prisoner that has their rights abused, every attack of the west on "Islam", makes them stronger not weaker. For every 1 that dies, 10 or more are created.




Yes they are "Mighty Comfortable" in Iraq now, they have the coalition to thank for that. A huge portion of the Iraqi people are ripe for Fundamentalism, which was denied by Hussain. Al Queda has plenty of people in Iraq that are sympathetic to them, the Kurds for starters, the previous "Government" certainly wasnt. Shame the "administration" didnt think of that before they went in..i certainly knew it, it wasnt exactly a secret.

Hell the number of sympathisers increases every day, ever wonder why?



You also seem to forget that there is one country that is already a Nuclear Power, and the Fundamentalists are quite strong there... Guess which are the fastest growing powers in Pakistan at the moment, and then ask yourself.... why?

Hint: They arent exactly Pro-American