Iraq: not looking good

[jdobbin]

So, in your opinion then, the conservative Islamist G=Facsist movement should be allowed to topple weak regimes and take control. Then, with a growing movement in a stronger oil rich country such as Saudi Arabia, they should also be permitted carte blanche and trade petro dollars for weapons to take other countries with. Then, when they have recreated the former Caliphate (which stretched from Spain to the Pacific) they should also be allowed to control world markets in trade and energy. While enforcing their rule of law on those they have taken over both militarily, subverted or simply ground into submission economicly.

Yes indeed, nothing worth fighting for. Just our children's and grandchildren's security and way of life. May as well give up and let them have free run.

If you truly believe that then you volunteer immediately for overseas service. Why let someone else fight that battle when you can be there yourself?

If this is truly a war against to so-called Republican named Islamo-Fascists, then ever man and woman in the States and Canada should be called to arms.

I already believe rich Saudis fund terrorism and less rich Saudis are recruited to fight. The U.S. does little about it.

And Pakistan, an ally of the U.S. lets terrorists train and attack Afghanistan and Britain and elsewhere.

[KrustyKidd]

If you truly believe that then you volunteer immediately for overseas service. Why let someone else fight that battle when you can be there yourself?

Three points.

1. Al Queda's manifesto is just what I said. Look it up sometime. Do you actually think there is terrorism all over certain countries that were coincidently former Caliphate rulings simply because they have nothing else to do?

Caliphate

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

2. I was 20 years military, eight of them in the Airborne Regiment. Three tours of the Middle East. At fifty, I think I can pass the torch on with dignity.

3. I also believe in gay rights but feel no need to show solidarity by sucking a pole to show support.

If this is truly a war against to so-called Republican named Islamo-Fascists, then ever man and woman in the States and Canada should be called to arms.

We don't need to draft people as there are enoujgh volunteers to do the job. However, every man and woman should be behind those who do the work a hundred percent as their children's future will be adversely affected should they fail in this fight.

You on the other hand obviously feel that all the terrorist actions (which if you take a look at closely all have a pattern in that they are destabilizing weaker regimes, displaying power for Islamic Conservatives to show their would be followers and influencing western politics in their favor) are simply designed to kill a few people as the end result. Of course if you are that two dimensional much of this won't make any sense to you whatsoever. However, look at it from their perspective. For eight centuries, the greatest and largest empire the world has known then nothing except being walked over by everynation on earth from Attila the Hun to the bloody Dutch. The whole movement has an appeal to all Islamics and Arabs and, makes complete sense if you are one of them.

I already believe rich Saudis fund terrorism and less rich Saudis are recruited to fight. The U.S. does little about it.

The US cannot invade SA asa that would play into the hands of the Wahhabist Conservatives. That was the intent of 911 to percipitate an action such as that to unify the Arab masses under the Radicals. Instead, the US did the next best (or next lest worse thing) by invading Iraq and placing direct pressure on SA to clean up their AL Queda infestation or they would in cross border operations. SA did just that and has the radicals and AQ on the run in the kingdom for the first time in half a century.

And Pakistan, an ally of the U.S. lets terrorists train and attack Afghanistan and Britain and elsewhere.

Doesn't let them but, is in the same boat as SA was in that if they directly comnfront them then there may be a revolution so, it has to be handled with pressure rather than a a sudden smashing movement.

[Black Dog]

The state could shut anyone of these gangs down at will. Are you telling us that Al Sadr could withstand a direct attack on his neighborhood if the government wished to shut him and his people down? The only reason they don't is that he is a unifying factor and, is able to be negotiated with. If they take him out, then they have to start all over again.

Bull. If they could, they would. but they can't for a number of reasons, not the elast of which being that the state's own coercive power is compromised by the conflicting loyalties within the ranks of its own forces.

From what I see happening in Iraq, there are no battles although heavy weapo0ns are used. When the Government attacks, it is with overwhelming force on concentrated targets wheras when the Insurgents attack the government, they are concentrating on weak points trying to undermine moral and make a statement of their power rather than conduct an effective crippling blow against the military capability of the government.

So asymmetrical warfare doesn't count?

Because you origional def is tailor made for you point

I didn't tailor it. What I offered was a broad set of criteria which is better suited to the realities of such conflicts than your narrow, archaic version.

Fighting for political power. Societal restructuring. Organised armies fighting conventional battles. Prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country.

Fighting for political power? Check. Social restructuring? Check. Organised armies? No, but your own definition makes it clear that that criteriea is debatable("Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country"). Prolonged violence? Check.

By your definition, action with gangs and sects constitutes a civil war as long as the terrorist acts hits the government weak points as well.

And?

That would be bordering on anarchy rather than being called a civil war.

I'm quite confident we'll see Iraq described in the same terms as the Lebanese Civil War, in which sectarian militias fought each other and the state without anyone gaining total political or military control, but where the level of violence was sufficient to deny effective government.

Moving on...

People who have intententions of subverting the world to their rule with others having no say in the matter are to be stopped, not appeased.

That depends entirely on their ability to carry out their plans. Hitler combined ruthless ambition with economic and military migght that dwarfed his western European prey. The conservative Wahhabists can't get their shit together enough to overthrow even one of the corrupt apostate regimes that dominate the Arab world. The chances of your fantasy scenario coming to pass are slim to none.

I have no wish to see North America or Europe become hostage to a military and economic poser run by Conservative Wahabbists thank you

And what entity could possibly pose such a threat? this:

So, in your opinion then, the conservative Islamist G=Facsist movement should be allowed to topple weak regimes and take control. Then, with a growing movement in a stronger oil rich country such as Saudi Arabia, they should also be permitted carte blanche and trade petro dollars for weapons to take other countries with. Then, when they have recreated the former Caliphate (which stretched from Spain to the Pacific) they should also be allowed to control world markets in trade and energy. While enforcing their rule of law on those they have taken over both militarily, subverted or simply ground into submission economicly.

Yes indeed, nothing worth fighting for. Just our children's and grandchildren's security and way of life. May as well give up and let them have free run.

Is great fodder for video games and speculative novels, but completely far fetched. IOW, it's a joke.

[KrustyKidd]

Bull. If they could, they would. but they can't for a number of reasons, not the elast of which being that the state's own coercive power is compromised by the conflicting loyalties within the ranks of its own forces.

If the state wanted Sadr they would take him out. Just one example. Are you telling me they could not?

So asymmetrical warfare doesn't count?

Sure it does if you wish to call any violence a civil war. The phrase civil war broken down to an untrained ear or mind would denote people in a popular uprising rather than a whole lot of different armed gangs. Where are the people marching in the street, the women and children pissed off and demanding their right to wear veils or have the army reintsated? You've got turf wars and protection rackets going. Not one group is a threat to the government however, most groups are benificial to the government as they stop the Jihadists from taking power in that region they operate in.

I didn't tailor it.

Link SVP.

Fighting for political power? Check. Social restructuring? Check. Organised armies? No, but your own definition makes it clear that that criteriea is debatable("Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country"). Prolonged violence? Check.

Gangs and turf wars - check.

I'm quite confident we'll see Iraq described in the same terms as the Lebanese Civil War, in which sectarian militias fought each other and the state without anyone gaining total political or military control, but where the level of violence was sufficient to deny effective government.

Goody. In the meantime, gangs and turf wars along with terrorism against the only open targets which are the government and unprotected turf and weaker gangs. Anarchy at best.

Moving on .....

Is great fodder for video games and speculative novels, but completely far fetched. IOW, it's a joke.

So in your mind terrorists are simply trying to kill westerners one by one rather than create an action or reaction of some kind? Simply being promised a virgin is fairly lame as an incentive to kill ones self don't you think?

[Black Dog]

If the state wanted Sadr they would take him out. Just one example. Are you telling me they could not?

They could, quite easily. But to do so would make things worse. At the end of the day, it amounts to the same thing: the state's actions are restricted.

Sure it does if you wish to call any violence a civil war. The phrase civil war broken down to an untrained ear or mind would denote people in a popular uprising rather than a whole lot of different armed gangs. Where are the people marching in the street, the women and children pissed off and demanding their right to wear veils or have the army reintsated? You've got turf wars and protection rackets going. Not one group is a threat to the government however, most groups are benificial to the government as they stop the Jihadists from taking power in that region they operate in.

Huh? There's no central authority either from the national level right down to the local level. Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them, others in the hands of whatever gang or group is in control. No one group is a threat to the government, but the whole slate of groups prevent the government from operating effectively, which is the next best thing. As for the popular uprsising bit, that's another criteria you seem to have pulled out of nowhere.

Link SVP.

I provided a link for one and a cite for the other (which I haven't found online yet).

Gangs and turf wars - check.

So Lebanon wasn't a civil war either. Nor was Somalia, nor is Sudan, nor was Bosnia. Check.

Goody. In the meantime, gangs and turf wars along with terrorism against the only open targets which are the government and unprotected turf and weaker gangs. Anarchy at best.

An arbitrary distinction at best.

So in your mind terrorists are simply trying to kill westerners one by one rather than create an action or reaction of some kind? Simply being promised a virgin is fairly lame as an incentive to kill ones self don't you think?

What I'm saying is that even if they followed your scenario to the letter, there's still nearly zero probability of them accomplishing that goal as long as the west maintains a monopoly of force. Personally, I don't believe acheiving the status of a state is actually all that desirable to them because it makes them more vulnerable; once you have territory, you can always lose it (see: the Taliban).

[KrustyKidd]

They could, quite easily. But to do so would make things worse. At the end of the day, it amounts to the same thing: the state's actions are restricted.

That is Black Dog replying to my statement of "If the state wanted Sadr they would take him out."

Here is what you said previously.

Bull. If they could, they would. but they can't for a number of reasons, not the elast of which being that the state's own coercive power is compromised by the conflicting loyalties within the ranks of its own forces.

Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them,

Which part? Name it and tell us all who the supporters are or retract. There is a reason why I know this is a crap staement so lets see your proof.

No one group is a threat to the government, but the whole slate of groups prevent the government from operating effectively

Oh, as I said, anarchy at best.

I provided a link for one and a cite for the other (which I haven't found online yet).

An e mail from someone perhaps? Make some proof up or whatever. Can you at least provide a link to the link which you had?

So Lebanon wasn't a civil war either. Nor was Somalia, nor is Sudan, nor was Bosnia. Check.

A link

For separatist civil wars to break out thus either the national army must fracture along ethnic, religious, or national lines as happened in Yugoslavia; or more commonly a modern separatist conflict takes the form of asymmetrical warfare with separatists lightly armed and disorganized, but with the support of the local population such groups can be hard to defeat.

What I'm saying is that even if they followed your scenario to the letter, there's still nearly zero probability of them accomplishing that goal as long as the west maintains a monopoly of force.

Big wrong. When they become the government of our trading partners or, a shoadow goevernment, then we trade with them. And, once they have economic power, they have political power and military power. They won't be sending envoys with belt bombs to garner favors of air bases and such to the west, they will be cutting off oil, bullying smaller countries adjacent to them and so on all with the intent of furthering Conservative Islamic values (that means adherence to the Koran to the letter as it was written thirteen hundred years ago.) If you don't agree with that then there will be lots of fourth world countries that will toe the mark and give them the means to get what they wish from second worl countries to make Jihad with the first world ones. Funny thing is, it's happening right in front of us and most people think it is pell mell radom violence when in fact, every terrorist action in Indonesia or the Phillipines is in preparation to topple weak regimes. Not topple them now, but weaken them so they can be toppled at will when the time is right.

Personally, I don't believe acheiving the status of a state is actually all that desirable to them because it makes them more vulnerable; once you have territory, you can always lose it (see: the Taliban).

The US would never deal with a Conservative Wahhabist Saudi Government but hey would deal with a Royal Family which was controlled by them.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE

They could, quite easily. But to do so would make things worse. At the end of the day, it amounts to the same thing: the state's actions are restricted.

That is Black Dog replying to my statement of "If the state wanted Sadr they would take him out."

Here is what you said previously.

QUOTE

Bull. If they could, they would. but they can't for a number of reasons, not the elast of which being that the state's own coercive power is compromised by the conflicting loyalties within the ranks of its own forces.

Well, I'm basically saying the same thing. They could take out Sadr (in that they have the capability), but they can't due to various other factors.

Which part? Name it and tell us all who the supporters are or retract. There is a reason why I know this is a crap staement so lets see your proof.

What's the reason. Lay it on me.

First, there's the electoral sucess of radical Islamic parties:

The real winners of the January 2005 elections were the Shiite religious parties. This was bad news for Bush. In partnership with the Kurdish Alliance, they formed a government that brought Ibrahim Jaafari of Dawa to power as prime minister and gave Dawa and SCIRI several important posts in the executive. Sunni Arabs from the rival branch of Islam were largely excluded from the new government, insofar as they had either boycotted the election or had been unable to vote for security reasons. The new Jaafari government quickly established warm relations with Iran, receiving a pledge of $1 billion in aid, the use of Iranian port facilities and help with refining Iraqi petroleum.

At the provincial level, the Shiite parties swept to power throughout the south. SCIRI dominated nine of 11 provinces that had a significant Shiite population, including Baghdad province. The Sadrists took Maysan province and Basra province. Shiite militias proliferated and established themselves.

link

But even by Iraqi standards, Basra's government is weak and divided. Elsewhere in the south, the strongest force locally has usually been the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), an Islamist Shia party strongly tied to the clergy. In Basra, a SCIRI-linked coalition won 20 of the provincial council's 41 seats in the election of January 2005, but the coalition was divided. The province's powerful governorship went to the small but well-organised Fadila party, which follows the radical ideology of the late Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadeq al-Sadr but rejects the authority of his son, Muqtada al-Sadr, who took over most of his father's clerical network in order to set up his Mahdi Army.

Since then, Fadila has built up its own power base and web of patronage. “If you want a job, go and pray under that awning,” runs a graffito on a wall beside a Fadila-run mosque. Many senior policemen are Fadila appointees. The party controls the oil ministry's provincial branch and has turned a private security force meant to guard Basra's oil infrastructure into its own militia. Other militias loyal to SCIRI and the mainstream Sadrists also run local rackets, especially oil smuggling, which, by some estimates, is worth $4 billion a year nationwide.

Link

Oh, as I said, anarchy at best.

As I said: a meaningless distinction.

An e mail from someone perhaps? Make some proof up or whatever. Can you at least provide a link to the link which you had?

I provided a cite already to Small and Singer's definition, which you scoffed at at the time. Here's another reference:

“any armed conflict that involves (a) military action internal to the metropole, ( the active participation of the national government, and © effective resistance by both sides.”-Resort to Arms, Small and Singer (1982, 210)

Here's some more views:

Civil war a reality, experts say

"In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it's not even a small one," said Larry Diamond, a former consultant to the provisional authority in Baghdad who is now critical of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq.

"I don't know how else you would describe something which has people from one community systematically attacking the other," said Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia during the civil war in the Balkans during the Clinton administration and who helped negotiate an end to the conflict in Croatia. "Sunni Arab insurgents have been attacking Shiite clergy, politicians and ordinary Shiites for simply being who they are ... and then you have a response, from the Shiites."

But please continue to use your oh-so-scholarly source wikipedia.

For separatist civil wars to break out thus either the national army must fracture along ethnic, religious, or national lines as happened in Yugoslavia; or more commonly a modern separatist conflict takes the form of asymmetrical warfare with separatists lightly armed and disorganized, but with the support of the local population such groups can be hard to defeat.

The operative word being separatist . The Lebanese Civil War, which would fail to count under your definition, was not a separatist civil war.

Big wrong. When they become the government of our trading partners or, a shoadow goevernment, then we trade with them. And, once they have economic power, they have political power and military power.

Political power and military power that would not pose a threat to the west (assuming they get organized enough to seize power).

. They won't be sending envoys with belt bombs to garner favors of air bases and such to the west, they will be cutting off oil, bullying smaller countries adjacent to them and so on all with the intent of furthering Conservative Islamic values (that means adherence to the Koran to the letter as it was written thirteen hundred years ago.)

It's funny: given your insistence on a full dramatis personae of all the players in Iraq, you're mighty vague about who these folks that are suppossed to be taking over Iraq are, their leaders etc. Given the sectarian divisions in the Muslim world, I'd love to know what kind of Islamic supergroup could trurn the trick of uniting what is really a large swath of ethically diverse and religiously fragmented population.

.) If you don't agree with that then there will be lots of fourth world countries that will toe the mark and give them the means to get what they wish from second worl countries to make Jihad with the first world ones. Funny thing is, it's happening right in front of us and most people think it is pell mell radom violence when in fact, every terrorist action in Indonesia or the Phillipines is in preparation to topple weak regimes. Not topple them now, but weaken them so they can be toppled at will when the time is right.

Ah, I see. And what time is that? Lunchtime?

Here's a more realitsic view.

Islamic Way of War

What are the implications of this new Islamic Way of War? While substantial, they fall well short of being apocalyptic. As Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has correctly—if perhaps a trifle defensively—observed, “Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle.” Neither the Muslim world nor certainly the Arab world poses what some like to refer to as “an existential threat” to the United States. Despite overheated claims that the so-called Islamic fascists pose a danger greater than Hitler ever did, the United States is not going to be overrun, even should the forces of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents, and Shi’ite militias along with Syria and Iran all combine into a unified anti-Crusader coalition. Although Israelis for historical reasons are inclined to believe otherwise, the proximate threat to Israel itself is only marginally greater. Although neither Israel nor the United States can guarantee its citizens “perfect security”—what nation can?—both enjoy ample capabilities for self-defense.

What the Islamic Way of War does mean to both Israel and to the United States is this: the Arabs now possess—and know that they possess—the capacity to deny us victory, especially in any altercation that occurs on their own turf and among their own people. To put it another way, neither Israel nor the United States today possesses anything like the military muscle needed to impose its will on the various governments, nation-states, factions, and political movements that comprise our list of enemies. For politicians in Jerusalem or Washington to persist in pretending otherwise is the sheerest folly.

Got that? They can deny us victory on their own turf. But they are astonishingly unsuccessful at doing anything beyond that. They can fight, but they can't conquer.

[KrustyKidd]

Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them,

Which part for crying out loud? Come on, the entire forum population is dying with suspense. Stand that comment down or provide the proof.

Well, I'm basically saying the same thing. They could take out Sadr (in that they have the capability), but they can't due to various other factors.

My goodness Black Dog. What is your problem? I origionally said

""The state could shut anyone of these gangs down at will. Are you telling us that Al Sadr could withstand a direct attack on his neighborhood if the government wished to shut him and his people down? The only reason they don't is that he is a unifying factor and, is able to be negotiated with. If they take him out, then they have to start all over again.""

To which you replied;

Bull. If they could, they would. but they can't for a number of reasons, not the elast of which being that the state's own coercive power is compromised by the conflicting loyalties within the ranks of its own forces.

So, now the state is strong enough to take him out but they don't. So, I was right after all. They just don't as they have other reasons not to. Therefore, he is not a threat to them and more of a benifit alive and in power.

What's the reason. Lay it on me.

Cut me some slack here on the leftist scale. You then went onto quote a lot of stuff about Shiite politics and whatever. Funny, you were saying how Jihadists were taking over and then to back it up, quote some things about how Shites were gaining power. Before I answer your shit, get it right, the Jihaddists are Sunni based and the Shiites are not. Now, if you wish to have the reason, at least get a grip on two of the more fundemental sects and organizations running here. Otherwise, anything I do explain will go over your head and waste both of our time.

I provided a cite already to Small and Singer's definition, which you scoffed at at the time. Here's another reference:

Sorry, mised that one. Perhaps, if you would, please provide the link. Thanks. Judging by the quote below where you have a guy highly critical of the Bush Admin actions to support your arguments, I really have to see this stuff in context to even consider it.

"In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it's not even a small one," said Larry Diamond, a former consultant to the provisional authority in Baghdad who is now critical of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq.

Huh? Garbage time. Possibly I could provide GWB's view to counter this one? I mean both would be biased on opposite poles I am sure.

Given the sectarian divisions in the Muslim world, I'd love to know what kind of Islamic supergroup could trurn the trick of uniting what is really a large swath of ethically diverse and religiously fragmented population.

You must be the left wing counter part of the comic book right wing hillbilly. Remember me - Krusty Kid. I think I explain who that is in almost every post. Right Wing Muslim Extremists, then I always narrow it down further to be Conservative Radical Wahhabists. Not mom and pop immigrant Arabs running a quickie mart in TO or Iranian PMs. The above to be exact.

Ah, I see. And what time is that? Lunchtime?

If America had attacked Saudi Arabia that would have coincided with a coup there. Then a gravitational anti western movement which would have been caliphate wide amongst the Sunnis in the ME and beyond. So, therefore, your question is a possibility as soon as they can get that momentum which they hoped to gain by 911 reaction.

Got that? They can deny us victory on their own turf. But they are astonishingly unsuccessful at doing anything beyond that. They can fight, but they can't conquer.

Black Dog, I never thought you were an idiot. A bit smarmy and immature perhaps but not a moron and, certainly not a racsist. Here, you cite a guy who is lumping all of Islam into one racially profiled enemy and you jump in there with him. Read the above response where I cite who the enemy is, not Islam but a cetain group of Islam who, with the right circumstances (many of which are fabricated by themselves against weak regime led nations) can poise themselves for the action that can enhance their position in stronger Islamic countries. Iran is not one of those countries they are shooting for BTW. Please return once you educate yourself.

[Black Dog]

Which part for crying out loud? Come on, the entire forum population is dying with suspense. Stand that comment down or provide the proof.

Fine. Withdrawn. But primarily because I erred it not getting clarification as to what the nonsense term "jihadis" means

Cut me some slack here on the leftist scale. You then went onto quote a lot of stuff about Shiite politics and whatever. Funny, you were saying how Jihadists were taking over and then to back it up, quote some things about how Shites were gaining power. Before I answer your shit, get it right, the Jihaddists are Sunni based and the Shiites are not. Now, if you wish to have the reason, at least get a grip on two of the more fundemental sects and organizations running here. Otherwise, anything I do explain will go over your head and waste both of our time.

Stick the condescension up your ass. The jihadis are Sunni? Fuck, you can't even tell me who or what the "jihadis" are. To coin a phrase: why don't you just try to give us a play by play on the groups, commanders, agenda and so on of these "jihadis". I've a feelin a jihadi for you is a lot like your definition of civil war: whatever you say it is.

Sorry, mised that one. Perhaps, if you would, please provide the link. Thanks. Judging by the quote below where you have a guy highly critical of the Bush Admin actions to support your arguments, I really have to see this stuff in context to even consider it.

Oh brother. I gave you the gawdamn cite, the authours and name of the article. As for the rest: I was not aware one had to be a registered G.O.P voter and Bush supporter o have a valid opinion.

Huh? Garbage time. Possibly I could provide GWB's view to counter this one? I mean both would be biased on opposite poles I am sure.

Diamond wasn't the only one quoted. Anyway, given your only resource so far has been wikipedia and, uh, you, I'd like to see something with a little more depth.

You must be the left wing counter part of the comic book right wing hillbilly. Remember me - Krusty Kid. I think I explain who that is in almost every post. Right Wing Muslim Extremists, then I always narrow it down further to be Conservative Radical Wahhabists. Not mom and pop immigrant Arabs running a quickie mart in TO or Iranian PMs. The above to be exact.

Doesn't answer my question.

If America had attacked Saudi Arabia that would have coincided with a coup there. Then a gravitational anti western movement which would have been caliphate wide amongst the Sunnis in the ME and beyond. So, therefore, your question is a possibility as soon as they can get that momentum which they hoped to gain by 911 reaction.

The only way America would have attacked SA is if there was coup. And there isn't much of a shortage of anti-western sentiment in the region. What there is a shortage of is a unified front or force capable of pulling off your master plan.

Black Dog, I never thought you were an idiot. A bit smarmy and immature perhaps but not a moron and, certainly not a racsist. Here, you cite a guy who is lumping all of Islam into one racially profiled enemy and you jump in there with him. Read the above response where I cite who the enemy is, not Islam but a cetain group of Islam who, with the right circumstances (many of which are fabricated by themselves against weak regime led nations) can poise themselves for the action that can enhance their position in stronger Islamic countries. Iran is not one of those countries they are shooting for BTW. Please return once you educate yourself.

Aw cute: rather than deal with the meat of the matter, you decide to whine about political correctness because, I guess, it saves you the embarrasment of dealing with the argument and of course gives you further license to blather on about "toppling weak regimes" without getting into the specifics of how they are supposed to pull that stunt off. More Underpants Gnome stuff.

Step 1: Jihad!

Step 2: ????????

Step 3: Caliphate

[jdobbin]

Just in case there were any doubts about Saddam not being linked to Al Qaeda (although Americans are increasingly believing again that Saddam ordered the attack on September 11)

Senate Intelligence Reports released.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/

[GostHacked]

Just in case there were any doubts about Saddam not being linked to Al Qaeda (although Americans are increasingly believing again that Saddam ordered the attack on September 11)

Senate Intelligence Reports released.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/ira...t.ap/index.html

CNN is reporting the same thing.

NO F*CKING KIDDING !!!! Tell us something we DON'T know. Looks more and more like they wanted something to happen to beat the war drums. Looks like it worked and pulled a fast one on the American population. Wake up people. If this is the kind of crap they pull and yet you will say you will vote for them AGAIN, you need to beat your own head against the wall.

/rant

[KrustyKidd]

Stick the condescension up your ass. The jihadis are Sunni? Fuck, you can't even tell me who or what the "jihadis" are. To coin a phrase: why don't you just try to give us a play by play on the groups, commanders, agenda and so on of these "jihadis". I've a feelin a jihadi for you is a lot like your definition of civil war: whatever you say it is.

First, there is no group that are Jihadists. That is why I knew you were not correct. A Jihadist is a Sunni for starters who is sympathetic to the Conservative Wahabbist vision of a greater Caliphate. They see the opportunity in Iraq to further their cause or, at least stop it from being pushed back decades or possibly forever into failure. That's why they just go and raise hell to stop the government from stabilizing. Not a concentrated coordinated process but a general push in the same direction. Chaos. Now, once you confirm you have a grip on what a Jihadist is, then I will go further.

Fine. Withdrawn. But primarily because I erred it not getting clarification as to what the nonsense term "jihadis" means

h

Wow. No wonder your arguments are so lost. Hope this helps Oxford Dictionary

jihadist

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English; 2006

ji·had·ist / ji'hädist/ n. a jihadi.

Here are a few articles which can give you some context.

More Jihadists

“”I am going to be talking about a group of people who are generally known as fundamentalists, extremists, or (as I have grown to call them) "jihadis." The term jihad suggests what they believe their lives are about--holy war that is directed against people they believe are their enemies and the enemies of their way of life. “”

From the hated wilkpedia

The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy

“” Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist". “”

Frontpage's Jihadists

“” This is jihad, organized violence against non-Moslems for the purpose of building up the wealth and power of the Islamic community and bringing the world under a single Islamic state. Jihadists conceive and rationalize their own activities in terms of these paradigms. Thus when Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for Sudan, and when he later left Sudan for Afghanistan, he saw those journeys as corresponding with the hejira, leaving a corrupt land, where he was powerless, for a more pure Islamic place from which jihad could be waged. “”

Time even has them

“” Jordanian authorities have told Mansour that after leaving Jordan on Jan. 27, his son crossed into Syria, the favorite route for Iraq-bound jihadists.“”

What’s comical is that you actually agreed they were in Iraq and now don’t know what they are or even what the word means.

Your quote;

Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them,

Alright, I got lazy tonight and just did a google and here is the first article Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism

From the article

“” Grand strategy is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. This is, I think, the only place where you can say that there is something unifying these groups and holding them together. The objective is, almost across the board, the same. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Islamic state. “”

Oh brother. I gave you the gawdamn cite, the authours and name of the article. As for the rest: I was not aware one had to be a registered G.O.P voter and Bush supporter o have a valid opinion.

Thanks for making it easy. As for having to be a registered GOP member no. Just something more impartial than a solid Bush detractor (as the authors by line describes him to be) would do fine. As I said, posting an opinion of a Bush hater can easily be refuted by just quoting GWB or Rush Limbaugh and, I know you don‘t value their biased opinions so why should I value the reverse? Oh, swearing doesn't make your point any more valid but, it is funny watching you get unwound.

Diamond wasn't the only one quoted. Anyway, given your only resource so far has been wikipedia and, uh, you, I'd like to see something with a little more depth.

Black Dog's origional question;

Given the sectarian divisions in the Muslim world, I'd love to know what kind of Islamic supergroup could trurn the trick of uniting what is really a large swath of ethically diverse and religiously fragmented population.

My answer;

You must be the left wing counter part of the comic book right wing hillbilly. Remember me - Krusty Kid. I think I explain who that is in almost every post. Right Wing Muslim Extremists, then I always narrow it down further to be Conservative Radical Wahhabists. Not mom and pop immigrant Arabs running a quickie mart in TO or Iranian PMs. The above to be exact.

Black Dog's reply;

Doesn't answer my question.

Ok. You want names and phone numbers or what? Jihadists intent on recreating the Caliphate. Wahabbists who are Sunnis. There are a lot of them and, they are not organized in any way save for the overall direction they push. Kind of like our capitalistic system where people from all walks of life work towards it without actually knowing who is in charge or with direct supervision.

The only way America would have attacked SA is if there was coup. And there isn't much of a shortage of anti-western sentiment in the region. What there is a shortage of is a unified front or force capable of pulling off your master plan.

911 was that master plan. Surely you know the Saudis stateside were flown immediately back home to help prop up the House of Saud to thwart a possible coup. Michael Moore to no surprise misinterpreted that action as being a friendly gesture on Bush’s part. As for the rest, I think you are begining to get it.

Aw cute: rather than deal with the meat of the matter, you decide to whine about political correctness because, I guess, it saves you the embarrasment of dealing with the argument and of course gives you further license to blather on about "toppling weak regimes" without getting into the specifics of how they are supposed to pull that stunt off. More Underpants Gnome stuff.

I can't expect you to run when you are still crawling. Get the Jihadist idea down, Al Queda's goals in your head then we can go further.

Jihadist Goals

“” However, I am going to argue that, in fact, this is not true. These are not random attacks; they are not entirely counterproductive. They do have strategies that are rational, systematic, and followed rigorously. These new terrorists believe that they have an ideology that is so important that it must be followed rigorously. There are many different groups and each one of them is carrying out its own rational systematic strategy. “”

“” In addition to the three stages in the growth of the Islamic community culminating in jihad, there are three basic approaches to waging jihad, called collectively the Method of Muhammed, that various Islamist groups respectively adopt toward the ultimate goal of establishing the world-wide rule of Islam. “”

Step 1: Jihad!

Step 2: ????????

Step 3: Caliphate

Separate state from population by creating havoc and showing the state as ineffectual to protect the population. Provide an organized front against the west via propaganda. Gain the support of the population via a common thread such as hatred of the regime, west or Israel. Further stress the regime by taking out economic capability such as oil, gas and tourism. Then, up the pressure on the government with the backing of the people. Then, weak regime in chaos ready for a political move on their part.

It has been argued countless times by the Left on this board that Iraqis would gladly have Saddam back if he brought stability or, gladly have a regime of Jihadists if they were to give them same. So, this method is not so far fetched to some.

Steps To Caliphate

“” The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." “”

Who they are

“” There are two major "trees" of Jihadism: The Salafists and the

Khumeinists. The Salafists, influenced by the radical Wahabis and the "Muslim

Brotherhood" call for the removal of the current Arab and Muslim

Governments and their replacement by a worldwide power they call "Caliphate."

American and other democratic societies around the world, including

Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and other, have been subjected

to an international ideological campaign by the "Jihadists" who aim to

bring about a worldwide domination, that is the creation of a

totalitarian global regime, similar to the Taliban. Their ideology opposes

Democracy, Pluralism, Secularism, and is a direct threat to Peace. “”

[KrustyKidd]

NO F*CKING KIDDING !!!! Tell us something we DON'T know. Looks more and more like they wanted something to happen to beat the war drums.

Looks more and more?????? You never noticed the shift in disarmement to Regime Change back in November of 2002?

Looks like it worked and pulled a fast one on the American population. Wake up people. If this is the kind of crap they pull and yet you will say you will vote for them AGAIN, you need to beat your own head against the wall.

Looks like it worked? Comon, Saddam's support of terrorism was only one of a whole bunch of reasons to take him out.

Americans are increasingly believing again that Saddam ordered the attack on September 11

I never thought that so, does that mean I am smarter than most or perhaps just able to read?

[newbie]

Here's a portion of Larry King with Bill Maher who, IMO, was right on the money.

KING: Are we better off with Saddam gone?

MAHER: We are not better off. We were never better off because Saddam was actually a bulwark against terrorism. He would never have allowed al Qaeda in Iraq. And I know people say oh, yes, there was al Qaeda. Yes, there was a few al Qaeda in the northern part of the country, which he did not control.

KING: He didn't like bin Laden, right?

MAHER: He hated bin Laden. So the world certainly is not better off without Saddam. And I don't know if even Iraq is better off without Saddam.

You ask the people in Iraq now. Because you know, we're running out of things that Saddam did that we don't do like torture, rape. About the only one left is mass graves. So in a lot of ways we are Saddam except for one thing, he at least had control of his country.

[Riverwind]

Here's a portion of Larry King with Bill Maher who, IMO, was right on the money.

Never really listened to Bill Maher before. He has another extremely insightful comment:

We didn't foil anything. The British did. If it was us, we probably would have blown that terrorist cell three months ago because we're so anxious to hold up anybody and say look how good we're doing in the war on terror.

And by the way, it just proves that what John Kerry said in 2004 is the right way to fight terror. With policework. I know that doesn't sound good to the musclebound American who wants to think we can win this by having the biggest, baddest army. But it's not a war you're going to win with an army, as Iraq proves.

John Kerry said this is a law enforcement problem. And that's exactly how they defeated those terrorists -- with good old-fashioned police work.

[Black Dog]

First, there is no group that are Jihadists. That is why I knew you were not correct. A Jihadist is a Sunni for starters who is sympathetic to the Conservative Wahabbist vision of a greater Caliphate. They see the opportunity in Iraq to further their cause or, at least stop it from being pushed back decades or possibly forever into failure. That's why they just go and raise hell to stop the government from stabilizing. Not a concentrated coordinated process but a general push in the same direction. Chaos. Now, once you confirm you have a grip on what a Jihadist is, then I will go further.

"There is no group that are Jihadists." So what are they? They aren't a group, then they aren't organized. They aren't organized what possible threat could they pose? Do they live under your bed or hide in the closet at night?

Alright, I got lazy tonight and just did a google and here is the first article Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism

From the article

“” Grand strategy is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. This is, I think, the only place where you can say that there is something unifying these groups and holding them together. The objective is, almost across the board, the same. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Islamic state. “”

But you said there are no jihadist groups.

Thanks for making it easy. As for having to be a registered GOP member no. Just something more impartial than a solid Bush detractor (as the authors by line describes him to be) would do fine. As I said, posting an opinion of a Bush hater can easily be refuted by just quoting GWB or Rush Limbaugh and, I know you don‘t value their biased opinions so why should I value the reverse? Oh, swearing doesn't make your point any more valid but, it is funny watching you get unwound.

You picked one person cited in the article and ignored the rest.

Ok. You want names and phone numbers or what? Jihadists intent on recreating the Caliphate. Wahabbists who are Sunnis. There are a lot of them and, they are not organized in any way save for the overall direction they push. Kind of like our capitalistic system where people from all walks of life work towards it without actually knowing who is in charge or with direct supervision.

State governments don't fall to random, uncoordinated and unorganized individuals, regardless of their goals. These individuals share an ideology, but without co-ordination, organization and some real muscle there's no way they will be able to achieve their grandioise goals.

There are many different groups and each one of them is carrying out its own rational systematic strategy

“In addition to the three stages in the growth of the Islamic community culminating in jihad, there are three basic approaches to waging jihad, called collectively the Method of Muhammed, that various Islamist groups respectively adopt toward the ultimate goal of establishing the world-wide rule of Islam. ”

Hoo boy. For some one crying about biased commentary above, you sure know how to pick your sources.

That aside, at best we're talking about a bunch of loose entities that, if they managed to somehow get their shit together and get organized, may end up bcoming a local threat. But that's about it.

Separate state from population by creating havoc and showing the state as ineffectual to protect the population. Provide an organized front against the west via propaganda. Gain the support of the population via a common thread such as hatred of the regime, west or Israel. Further stress the regime by taking out economic capability such as oil, gas and tourism. Then, up the pressure on the government with the backing of the people. Then, weak regime in chaos ready for a political move on their part.

Pretty big stuff for a bunch with no organization. Here's somethingh to remember: ideologies don't conquer. Armies do.

[KrustyKidd]

ideologies don't conquer. Armies do.

You really are a right winger!

Now, back to brass tacks. A great idea can't be lined up against the wall and threatened, shot or imprisoned. That is a philosophical saying and a truism. The quest for the Caliphate's recreation after eight hundred years of Islamic and Arab supression is a goal that is so common only an idiot would not see it happening. No groups need to be co ordinated (as we see with the Toronto 17, Madrid bombings and Brisitsh and Indonsesian and so on and forth.) they all believe the same thing and they all use the same methods and, all are cemented by the vision of the finished product.

You ask for groups and I say there are no hard groups save Al Zarkowie's group in Iraq, Al Queda and a few more. See, the hard part of the war on terror is there is no center to any of them as it is an idealology that has to be beaten. Beaten by countering the attraction of it by instilling hope and a future here on earth rather than a reward in heaven comrised of sins they are not allowed to enjoy on earth.

State governments don't fall to random, uncoordinated and unorganized individuals, regardless of their goals. These individuals share an ideology, but without co-ordination, organization and some real muscle there's no way they will be able to achieve their grandioise goals.

They are not atempting to beat the shit out of the government rather, sdeparate the government from the people by showing the government inept, unable to keep the people safe and then, offer a counter choice such as religion or, a better way of life in prayer to their belief system. Lowering and intensifying the attacks as per the flow of public opinion. Won't work in the states but it sure will in Afganistan, Iraq or the Phillipines if no US support is shown.

You picked one person cited in the article and ignored the rest.

You obviously didn't care who or what their agenda was or you would have picked something with a less bigoted mind sao why should I?.

Pretty big stuff for a bunch with no organization.

It is. The Taliban controlled an entire country, Suadi Arabia was afraid to confront them until pressured by the US, attacks from Spain to the Pacific all by people with the same goal - to attack and attack until they win. And you consider them no threat. In Iraq, the Sunnis permit them to operate to adjust the heat on the goverment to gain concessions and you consider them no threat.

The jihadis are Sunni? Fuck, you can't even tell me who or what the "jihadis" are.

At least now, you know what a Jihadist is. Thanks for taking the time to come around.

[Black Dog]

Now, back to brass tacks. A great idea can't be lined up against the wall and threatened, shot or imprisoned. That is a philosophical saying and a truism. The quest for the Caliphate's recreation after eight hundred years of Islamic and Arab supression is a goal that is so common only an idiot would not see it happening. No groups need to be co ordinated (as we see with the Toronto 17, Madrid bombings and Brisitsh and Indonsesian and so on and forth.) they all believe the same thing and they all use the same methods and, all are cemented by the vision of the finished product.

Where there's a will there's a way, then? Er...except it doesn't. An ideology can't be shot or imprisoned, but an ideology can't conquer a nation, can't hold land, can't fire a gun. The fact that jihadism or whatever you want to call it has gone global is meaningless. Name a successful ideological revolution that has occurred without a central force to give it expression or a large base of popular support. So far, the jihadis have neither.

They are not atempting to beat the shit out of the government rather, sdeparate the government from the people by showing the government inept, unable to keep the people safe and then, offer a counter choice such as religion or, a better way of life in prayer to their belief system. Lowering and intensifying the attacks as per the flow of public opinion. Won't work in the states but it sure will in Afganistan, Iraq or the Phillipines if no US support is shown.

Which doesn't explain why they target the west and why terrorist attacks in Mulsim countries tend to produce the opposite result (taht is, decreased support for the terrorist's goals). Also, our invocation of the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency as part of the jihadi movement is dead wrong. The former was a Wahhabist inspired but locally focused movement, the latter a diverse group including both Shiite and Sunni, secular and religious factions.

You obviously didn't care who or what their agenda was or you would have picked something with a less bigoted mind sao why should I?.

Again (and this is not hard to understand): the article included numerous sources. Yu picked one and have been banging away on that. The point was to show that there's people across the ideological spectrum who concur Iraq is in civil war. You decided to whine about partisan bias of one of the sources.

It is. The Taliban controlled an entire country, Suadi Arabia was afraid to confront them until pressured by the US, attacks from Spain to the Pacific all by people with the same goal - to attack and attack until they win. And you consider them no threat. In Iraq, the Sunnis permit them to operate to adjust the heat on the goverment to gain concessions and you consider them no threat.

And now who's "lumping all of Islam into one racially profiled enemy"?

And damn right I consider them no threat. You haven't demonstrated they are.

[KrustyKidd]

Name a successful ideological revolution that has occurred without a central force to give it expression or a large base of popular support. So far, the jihadis have neither.

Ghandi's Passive resistance. Most Jihadists are Conservative Wahabbists. You think they are only a fringe group in Saudi Arabia? The lack of confornting the group that continually called for the killing of the Royal Family was a testament to their strength in that particular country.

Which doesn't explain why they target the west and why terrorist attacks in Mulsim countries tend to produce the opposite result (taht is, decreased support for the terrorist's goals).

Do you have alzhiemers? I thought I explained to you that they attack the west in order to provoke a response whereby they can show the Islamic world that the west is attcacking Islam and thereby unite them under one banner. Theirs. As for decreased support for the terrorists goals, exactly what are terrorists goals Black Dog?

). Also, our invocation of the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency as part of the jihadi movement is dead wrong. The former was a Wahhabist inspired but locally focused movement, the latter a diverse group including both Shiite and Sunni, secular and religious factions.

Yes ondeed. The Pious Sutdents (Taliban) had no idea Al Queda had aspirations other than to simply hang out and shoot pool in Afganistan. The two go hand in hand. Taliban is support for 'The Base.' The Iraqi insurgency is not a Jihad. One of the factions or considerations of the insurgency is Jihadists. The rest are gangs, groups, mentalities and idealologies.

You decided to whine about partisan bias of one of the sources.

To tell the truth, it was the only one I looked at and when I saw that, knew the rest had to be just as bogus. Here, I'll get quotes from Rush, Hannitty, Bush, Savage and so on and forth.

And now who's "lumping all of Islam into one racially profiled enemy"?

Conservative Wahabbists and their supporters are not a racial group.

And damn right I consider them no threat. You haven't demonstrated they are.

Is that why almost evdery country on earth is engaged in the War on Terror? Because there is no threat. Wow. Better tell France, Russia, China and so on and forth not to mention the ninety or so countries working alongside the US and the rest of the coalition that they are worried about squat.

See, this is where it is proven that some people do not learn from history. The Nazi party began pretty small, as did the communists. The internet brings these people together pretty close and they are hero worshiped in a lot of places. In fact, one picture of victims of the Tsunami shows a guy reciving aid while he is sporting an OBL T shirt. Ya, don't worry BD, there is no threat. If nothing else, there is a threat to people in general just by getting bloown up on planes and buildings but that is secondary to me as the real threat is seeing people back these guys up. I mean, OBL is being hidden by somebody. The Jihadists are being helped in Iraq by somebody and, fed, financed, clothed and given transport but that doesn't enter into your mind does it?

[Riverwind]

I thought I explained to you that they attack the west in order to provoke a response whereby they can show the Islamic world that the west is attcacking Islam and thereby unite them under one banner.

This is why the invasion of Iraq was a dumb thing to do - it simply played into bin laden's hands.

[KrustyKidd]

This is why the invasion of Iraq was a dumb thing to do - it simply played into bin laden's hands.

The US had to do a few things and it all added up to invasion. First, the area was not a peaceful one with Saddam in a box. Sooner or later the box would have to be removed and then he or one of his sons would be up to the same old things. So, taking him out of power was a bonus for them.

Two. As I explained for the umteenth time to alzhiemer boy, the US needed to get the Suadis to take on Al Queda within their own border or there would be a coup sooner or later. Al Qudeda in control of SA would be extremely bad for the situation there.

Third. Showing the will of the US who were reknowned for cutting and running to support those who wish freedom was essential for change within the region as it is the poverty of the people and oppulance of the corrupt regimes which fuel the Jihadist mentality.

Fourth. To create a democracy within the center of the region where people can decide their own future is counter to the culture the Jihadists wish which is control of every aspect from shitting to how you dress.

Fifth: To pressure friend and foe to take on jihadists within their border or, not allow them to entrench themselves period.

The other three choices were to leave Saudi Arabia to the mounting tide of Conservative Wahabbism and hope for the best. Invade SA to take out the Royals and replace them with a democratic government. Or, to make a deal with Saddam where he would stay in power and let the US have bases there to threaten SA with to take care of AL Queda.

The first is not on as too risky. The second would play into the hands of Al Queda who would be instantly popularized into power as a resistance front. The third took care of nothing as it too would have be a galvanizing factor for Al Queda to show the people that the west is in bed with the corrupt regimes and they would more than likely have increased in power in SA rather than be marginalized as they are now.

As for playing into Bin Ladens hands, if you will note in his month old camel gram he is now concentrating on Somalia rather than the US. A very interesting shift from being a threat to the Superpower to going to a shithole on the Horn of Africa. Bin Laden is not a movement, the entire Jihadist idealology is and, Al Queda is being beaten but, the mentality is still there.

[Riverwind]

First, the area was not a peaceful one with Saddam in a box. Sooner or later the box would have to be removed and then he or one of his sons would be up to the same old things.

Lots of places are not peaceful and have brutal dictators in charge - some of them with oil like Sudan. We don't 'have to' do anything about them so it does not follow that anything needed to be done about Saddam. He may have been a brute but the Islamists were his number one enemy (the US was second).

the US needed to get the Suadis to take on Al Queda within their own border or there would be a coup sooner or later. Al Qudeda in control of SA would be extremely bad for the situation there.

The House of Saud is capable of looking after itself. There is nothing the US could or should do to help other than getting US troops out of the country which were needlessly providing Arab nationalists.

Showing the will of the US who were renowned for cutting and running to support those who wish freedom was essential

The US will be inevitably forced to 'cut and run' - the cost of the war is simply too high. I am pretty sure that troops will start coming home after 2008 no matter who wins the presidency. If anything the invasion has proved that US military power has its limits and simply encouraged Iran to pursue nukes at whatever cost.

Fourth. To create a democracy within the center of the region where people can decide their own future is counter to the culture the Jihadists wish which is control of every aspect from shitting to how you dress.

Just like the democracy in Palestine that elected Hamas? or the one in Lebanon that elected Hezbolla? or the one in Russia that is letting Putin reestablish the one party state? Democracy cannot be imposed on a culture - they must want it and be willing to fight for it themselves. You must remember that very few people in these countries are willing to accept a decision just because the 'majority said so'. Any lip service they pay to democracy is because they believe that their tribe will make the decisions. It is hopeless pipe dream to believe that a foreign military can come in, depose the existing govt, set up a democracy and leave.

Germany and Japan are _not_ examples of successes because both societies had already started to experiment with democratic institutions before WW2 started. All the Allies had to do it build on the ground work that was already laid. In Iraq and most other countries it is necessary to build democratic institutions from scratch - that is a pipe dream.

[Black Dog]

Ghandi's Passive resistance.

Bzzzt! Wrong.

The question was:

Name a successful ideological revolution that has occurred without a central force to give it expression or a large base of popular support.

Passive resistance was a means to an end, a tactic for affecting change. Ghandi's "revolution" used passive resistance as an ideology, but in the end also reqcuired the his leadership, a political party (the Congress Party) and the active participation of some 15 million members and some 70 million others.

Try again.

(Oh yeah, another thing conservative Wahabbists don't have that pretty much every successful revolutionary movement has had is the support and membership of an educated middle class.)

Most Jihadists are Conservative Wahabbists. You think they are only a fringe group in Saudi Arabia? The lack of confornting the group that continually called for the killing of the Royal Family was a testament to their strength in that particular country.

Your use of the past tense is telling.

Do you have alzhiemers? I thought I explained to you that they attack the west in order to provoke a response whereby they can show the Islamic world that the west is attcacking Islam and thereby unite them under one banner. Theirs.

Well, they've managed to get the west to attack Islamic states. Yet compare the widepread outrage and response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the silence that greeted western invasion of that same country some 25 years later. There's no global movement, no huge tide of recruits willing to fight the infidel. Even in Iraq, only a tiny fraction of foreign fighters have joined the insurgency. Meanwhile, attacks on domestic targets have turned public opinion firmly against Al Qaeda and forced the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia to crack down on their own extremists.

Yes ondeed. The Pious Sutdents (Taliban) had no idea Al Queda had aspirations other than to simply hang out and shoot pool in Afganistan. The two go hand in hand. Taliban is support for 'The Base.' The Iraqi insurgency is not a Jihad. One of the factions or considerations of the insurgency is Jihadists. The rest are gangs, groups, mentalities and idealologies.

The Taliban needed Al Qaeda's money and they needed its muscle.They were small-timers with no aspirations beyond their own patch of dirt. Nothing you've produced has indicate dotherwise.

Is that why almost evdery country on earth is engaged in the War on Terror? Because there is no threat. Wow. Better tell France, Russia, China and so on and forth not to mention the ninety or so countries working alongside the US and the rest of the coalition that they are worried about squat.

I'll explain this to you: terrorism is threat to lives and property, which is why it is being addressed. But there's no threat of the jihadis rising up and establishing the caliphate on Jihad Skull Island from which they can menace the west and spread their ideology. Zip. Zero. Zilch. You're pissing your pants for no good reason.

See, this is where it is proven that some people do not learn from history. The Nazi party began pretty small, as did the communists. The internet brings these people together pretty close and they are hero worshiped in a lot of places. In fact, one picture of victims of the Tsunami shows a guy reciving aid while he is sporting an OBL T shirt.

Yeah and I saw footage from Beirut where one kid was wearing a Sheik Nassralah T-shirt and another was wearing one with Disney's Tasmanian Devil on it.

Ya, don't worry BD, there is no threat. If nothing else, there is a threat to people in general just by getting bloown up on planes and buildings but that is secondary to me as the real threat is seeing people back these guys up. I mean, OBL is being hidden by somebody. The Jihadists are being helped in Iraq by somebody and, fed, financed, clothed and given transport but that doesn't enter into your mind does it?

ONOZ! Who could it be? Him? Or maybe this guy?

The world is changing. the same internet that you see giving the jihadis strength is actually their weakness. For every pissed off Muslim kid in London or elsewhere reading about the Caliphate and how to make a bomb, there's ten in Saudi Arabia looking at Diesel jeans and downloading 50 Cent mp3s. It's a shame so many missteps have been taken in the war on terror (like invading Iraq) that have given a dead-end movement a new lease on life, but in the end, the threat you describe exists only as the stuff of a bad network miniseries.

But let's find out: I'll get on with my life, you can crawl into your fear hole in your soiled Underoos and in five years we'll check back and see who's right.

Two. As I explained for the umteenth time to alzhiemer boy, the US needed to get the Suadis to take on Al Queda within their own border or there would be a coup sooner or later. Al Qudeda in control of SA would be extremely bad for the situation there.

Yup: the United States pulled its troops out of Saudi Arabia and stuck them in against Iraq to deal with....Saudi Arabia. That one gets a big out of me everytime.

[jdobbin]

Four U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Over 200 Iraqis killed in violence Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/...main/index.html

[KrustyKidd]

(Oh yeah, another thing conservative Wahabbists don't have that pretty much every successful revolutionary movement has had is the support and membership of an educated middle class.)

Your use of the past tense is telling.

Yes it is. Shows how the US action in Iraq has forced the Suadis to take the unpleasent action and has taken care of that particular threat for now. However, as you state above about the middle class

Yup: the United States pulled its troops out of Saudi Arabia and stuck them in against Iraq to deal with....Saudi Arabia. That one gets a big laugh.gif out of me everytime.

Yes, I'll bet it does as you don't understand how much of a threat Al Queda and conservative Wahabbism was to the regime. The Wahabbists were using the US presence there to galvanize the people (middle and lower and even upper class) against the Royals. Hence, the US went along with the request to leave As it was feeding the Conservative problem . However, the Suaids, willing to appease the Wahabbists still were unwilling to confront them until the US occupied Iraq. Glad it makes you laugh as this is pretty common knowledge to pretty much every anyalist

There's no global movement, no huge tide of recruits willing to fight the infidel. Even in Iraq, only a tiny fraction of foreign fighters have joined the insurgency. Meanwhile, attacks on domestic targets have turned public opinion firmly against Al Qaeda and forced the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia to crack down on their own extremists.

Ah great! Now you agree the War on Terror has and is being sucessful and that Jiahdists are fighting for relevency in this serious struggle! You finally are beggining to get it.

The Taliban needed Al Qaeda's money and they needed its muscle.

The Taliban neded shit from Al Queda as they are conservative Wahabbists and got lots of support from Saudi Arabia (who were the first country to recognize them) Al Queda integrated it's people in with the Taliban military so one could almost conclude it was a relationa=ship based on mutual goals.

They were small-timers with no aspirations beyond their own patch of dirt. Nothing you've produced has indicate dotherwise.

The Taliban? Running an Islamic state and hand in hand with an organizatin that seeks a larger Islamic state. Ya, maybe you're right but inconsequential as every Conservative Wahabbist seeks a larger Islamic State. That's their doctrine. As for being small time, they took over an entire nation and held it. Hardly small time.

I'll explain this to you: terrorism is threat to lives and property, which is why it is being addressed. .

I'll explain this to you; terrorism can change goverments in weak regimes and gain momentum in order to form a government. The Conservative Wahabbist religion endorses terrorism for their ends rather than the reason for their existence so is hardly an organization or idealology trying to simply acheive property damage or mischief.

But there's no threat of the jihadis rising up and establishing the caliphate on Jihad Skull Island from which they can menace the west and spread their ideology. Zip. Zero. Zilch. You're pissing your pants for no good reason

They took Afganistan, would probably have taken Saudi Arabia and, at this moment are very strong in Pakistan. Other countries that come to mind are Somalia and Ethipia.

The world is changing. the same internet that you see giving the jihadis strength is actually their weakness. For every pissed off Muslim kid in London or elsewhere reading about the Caliphate and how to make a bomb, there's ten in Saudi Arabia looking at Diesel jeans and downloading 50 Cent mp3s. It's a shame so many missteps have been taken in the war on terror (like invading Iraq) that have given a dead-end movement a new lease on life, but in the end, the threat you describe exists only as the stuff of a bad network miniseries..

How was invading Iraq a mistep? Most morons say that it creates terrorists but here you are saying that terrorists are not a problem so, we got rid of a dictator and rid of his WMD as well as aspirations of regional power. You also show us that in your opinion, the war on terror is being won as one of the pressures the US placed on SA was to make social and human rights reforms.

But let's find out: I'll get on with my life, you can crawl into your fear hole in your soiled Underoos and in five years we'll check back and see who's right

Actually, I believe the war is being waged correctly and have no problems with it so do not live in a hole.