View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Quote: |
Where has Al queda fought against other Muslims? In Iraq it is the insurgents who are killing the Muslims while the AQ folk are killing the "invaders." I suppose there is some mixing of these two elements given that some younger Iraqis are drawn to AQ because they want to kill the foreign troops. Again, all this from Iraq insurgency leaders. |
They're called suicide bombings. They kill Iraqi civilians again and again, many of whom are Muslims. I suppose I could provide many links but I'm wondering where you're getting your information that AQ, the people who brought you the WTC bombings and Madrid, is not pursuing suicide attacks while other insurgent groups are. |
Aigoo... I said this myself. The distinction I made is that AQ primarily targets coalition forces while the insurgents primarily target Iraqis. I siad there is likely to be some blurring of just who is doing what as some Iraqis are joining up with the AQ groups and, well, collateral damage.
The source is former Iraqi generals who are now inusrgency leaders via CNN's Iraq update last month. |
Since Messrs Kuros and Bucheon Bum have now backed up my view with links (thank you gentlemen) I believe I can rest my case. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
As I've said on other threads: fall down go Boom!!
Armageddon, anyone? What a pain in the ass it would be if Revelations turned out to be true... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
... |
You might want to read it more carefully. They haven't decided how to proceed on their goals
But further on down the article states(under the heading back to base ) the leadership is said be confident of accquiring significant space in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) See the 4th paragraph under that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
... |
You might want to read it more carefully. They haven't decided how to proceed on their goals
But further on down the article states(under the heading back to base ) the leadership is said be confident of accquiring significant space in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) See the 4th paragraph under that. |
I can read. Nothing was stated as being final. While they may want a base, we don't know where it would be for certain. It may not involve Iraq in the end.
However, that they want a base and *seem* to be persuing this agenda, it is a concern. Just as happened in Afghanistan, it may be easier to deal with them in that case... Hmmm... At any rate, creating a space defined as being controlled by a nation or organization that is stating it intends to eliminate any and all non-Muslim countries would pretty much justify anything *anybody* proposed to deal with the issue. They'd have about 200 countries aligned against them in about ten seconds.
They may want to re-think that strategy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
... |
You might want to read it more carefully. They haven't decided how to proceed on their goals
But further on down the article states(under the heading back to base ) the leadership is said be confident of accquiring significant space in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) See the 4th paragraph under that. |
I can read. Nothing was stated as being final. While they may want a base, we don't know where it would be for certain. It may not involve Iraq in the end...
. |
The article says that the leadership is "confident" of acquring space in Iraq. They wouldn't be confident unless that was their plan. The reason they want space in Iraq (as opposed to other places) is to legitimize their jihad against the Americans. That is why they want Iraq AND Afghanistan. But they are definitely planning for a space in Iraq (as I have said all along). The article points out that they need that in order to claim a legitimite jihad. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
... |
You might want to read it more carefully. They haven't decided how to proceed on their goals
But further on down the article states(under the heading back to base ) the leadership is said be confident of accquiring significant space in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) See the 4th paragraph under that. |
I can read. Nothing was stated as being final. While they may want a base, we don't know where it would be for certain. It may not involve Iraq in the end...
. |
The article says that the leadership is "confident" of acquring space in Iraq. They wouldn't be confident unless that was their plan. The reason they want space in Iraq (as opposed to other places) is to legitimize their jihad against the Americans. That is why they want Iraq AND Afghanistan. But they are definitely planning for a space in Iraq (as I have said all along). The article points out that they need that in order to claim a legitimite jihad. |
And it also said they had not finalized their plan. Can we stop repeating the content of the article now? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
... |
You might want to read it more carefully. They haven't decided how to proceed on their goals
But further on down the article states(under the heading back to base ) the leadership is said be confident of accquiring significant space in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) See the 4th paragraph under that. |
I can read. Nothing was stated as being final. While they may want a base, we don't know where it would be for certain. It may not involve Iraq in the end...
. |
The article says that the leadership is "confident" of acquring space in Iraq. They wouldn't be confident unless that was their plan. The reason they want space in Iraq (as opposed to other places) is to legitimize their jihad against the Americans. That is why they want Iraq AND Afghanistan. But they are definitely planning for a space in Iraq (as I have said all along). The article points out that they need that in order to claim a legitimite jihad. |
And it also said they had not finalized their plan. Can we stop repeating the content of the article now? |
But now you are widening the parameters of the discussion. The original question under topic was that whether AQ wanted a space (and a say) in Iraq should the Americans go home. That was what we were talking about. BTW the "plan" you are talking about was not a plan it was one of two issues the leadership was discussing. The objective has always remained the same which is to establish bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finalizing such a plan would only mean establishing the bases not deciding to put them there. Such a decision has already been made, by the leadership's statement that they feel confident of accquring space there. Why would they make such a statement if that was not their plan?
I rest my case. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Don't rest it too easily: according to the first article posted, AQ itself hasn't decided how to proceed.
... |
You might want to read it more carefully. They haven't decided how to proceed on their goals
But further on down the article states(under the heading back to base ) the leadership is said be confident of accquiring significant space in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) See the 4th paragraph under that. |
I can read. Nothing was stated as being final. While they may want a base, we don't know where it would be for certain. It may not involve Iraq in the end...
. |
The article says that the leadership is "confident" of acquring space in Iraq. They wouldn't be confident unless that was their plan. The reason they want space in Iraq (as opposed to other places) is to legitimize their jihad against the Americans. That is why they want Iraq AND Afghanistan. But they are definitely planning for a space in Iraq (as I have said all along). The article points out that they need that in order to claim a legitimite jihad. |
And it also said they had not finalized their plan. Can we stop repeating the content of the article now? |
But now you are widening the parameters of the discussion. The original question under topic was that whether AQ wanted a space (and a say) in Iraq should the Americans go home. That was what we were talking about. BTW the "plan" you are talking about was not a plan it was one of two issues the leadership was discussing. The objective has always remained the same which is to establish bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finalizing such a plan would only mean establishing the bases not deciding to put them there. Such a decision has already been made, by the leadership's statement that they feel confident of accquring space there. Why would they make such a statement if that was not their plan?
I rest my case. |
Tomato/tomato. There is no case to rest. This point is pointless. Arguing it to death is silly. You read the article one way, I another. That's all there is to it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
But now you are widening the parameters of the discussion. The original question under topic was that whether AQ wanted a space (and a say) in Iraq should the Americans go home. |
Sorry to nut you both with reality, but ... "The original question under topic" was
What Cindy Sheehan (Also) Said
Gee, I guess I'm an a-hole for pointing that out, huh? Or else the guy who started talking about the "original question" is really sort of a little bit, um ... dumb.
Not like any of us around here ever guessed it before, of course.
There's such a thing as, gee, I guess it's called "starting a new thread" when a discussion devolves into a couple of guys discussing something that has NOTHING to do with the OP.
Don't get me wrong, not complaining. The 2 of you have succeeded in keeping Cindy's name on Page on this Forum for a couple of weeks, and I was thinking I'd have to go looking for stuff she said in order to keep that up for long.
Good job, you guys. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Bobster wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
But now you are widening the parameters of the discussion. The original question under topic was that whether AQ wanted a space (and a say) in Iraq should the Americans go home. |
(1) Sorry to nut you both with reality, but ... "The original question under topic" was
What Cindy Sheehan (Also) Said
Gee, I guess I'm an a-hole for pointing that out, huh? Or else the guy who started talking about the "original question" is really sort of a little bit, um ... dumb.
Not like any of us around here ever guessed it before, of course.
(2) There's such a thing as, gee, I guess it's called "starting a new thread" when a discussion devolves into a couple of guys discussing something that has NOTHING to do with the OP.
Don't get me wrong, not complaining. The 2 of you have succeeded in keeping Cindy's name on Page on this Forum for a couple of weeks, and I was thinking I'd have to go looking for stuff she said in order to keep that up for long.
(3) Good job, you guys. |
(numbers are mine)
1. And then we (EFL_trainer and myself) finished with that and moved on. New topic (although related, see second point) thus making it an original topic.
2. You were the one that originally sparked this discussion by bringing up the Yahoo News article. I was on topic, merely following your lead. And one might have a case for stating that the situation in Iraq does have something to with the ORIGINAL POST, since that is what C.S. is going on about.
(3) You're welcome. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Bobster wrote: |
[ ...Gee, I guess I'm an a-hole for pointing that out, huh? Or else the guy who started talking about the "original question" is really sort of a little bit, um ... dumb.
Not like any of us around here ever guessed it before, of course...
. |
I wouldn't call you an a-hole for pointing that out. Valid point, even though I disagree with it.
Some people though might apply that label to you for making uncalled for personal flames
Other might apply that label to you because hey it's not "like any of us around here ever guessed it before, of course.."
Since I am in neither of these camps I will simply observe that a thread isn't really a thread until The Bobster has come in and dressed people down for daring to disagree with his personal philosophy. This thread is ace BTW. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bob gets a little nitpicky at times, true enough. TUBs, dude, just a little pot and kettle with that dressing down remark, no?
Oh, damn... here we are off on another topic.... What to do, what to do...
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|