kuzadd Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda's presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated. What!! the US would "overstate" the AlQuaeda threats, oh I just can't imagine that?? The essential questions are: How large is the presence of AQI, in terms of manpower and attacks instigated, and what role does the group play in catalyzing further violence? For the first question, the military has produced an estimate. In a background briefing this July in Baghdad, military officials said that during the first half of this year AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. That figure was also cited in the military intelligence report during final preparations for a National Intelligence Estimate in July. THEREFORE 85% of the attacks HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Alqueda Yet those who have worked on estimates inside the system take a more circumspect view. Alex Rossmiller, who worked in Iraq as an intelligence officer for the Department of Defense, says that real uncertainties exist in assigning responsibility for attacks. "It was kind of a running joke in our office," he recalls. "We would sarcastically refer to everybody as al-Qaeda." Now other say it is even less, way , way less! Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization." a microscopic terrorist agency, 2-5 percent!!!!! WOW! Now why would the US overestimate, intentionally the threat of "AlQuaeda in Iraq"?? Unless, the US wants to continue to justify the occupation. As if that hasn't been obvious all along anyway. "cakewalk to Baghdad" Edited September 10, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 Only cognitive dissonance can explain how someone can downplay the fact that 15% of the attacks come from one source while puposely overlooking that dozens and dozens of other groups are responsible for the remaining 85%. In my world the 15% would be called an encroaching marketshare. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kuzadd Posted September 10, 2007 Author Report Posted September 10, 2007 Only cognitive dissonance can explain how someone can downplay the fact that 15% of the attacks come from one source while puposely overlooking that dozens and dozens of other groups are responsible for the remaining 85%.In my world the 15% would be called an encroaching marketshare. But it's not even 15 percent, it's actually less, according to another twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization." 2 to five percent, is not much of a marketshare. Oh and btw , in case you are having difficulty reading and comprehending, the article is called the myth of AlQuaeda in Iraq. But the main point is the threat of AlQuaeda is overblown, as is clearly stated. Therefore I "purposely" overlooked nothing, but you in fact, choose to do so, by missing the premise of the entire article. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 But it's not even 15 percent, it's actually less, according to another 2 to five percent, is not much of a marketshare. Oh and btw , in case you are having difficulty reading and comprehending, the article is called the myth of AlQuaeda in Iraq. But the main point is the threat of AlQuaeda is overblown, as is clearly stated. Therefore I "purposely" overlooked nothing, but you in fact, choose to do so, by missing the premise of the entire article. You purpose overlook by purposely cherry picking paragraphs from unsourced sites. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 Of course, if I picked my stuff from tinfoil sites like yours, I wouldn't post the links either. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
buffycat Posted September 11, 2007 Report Posted September 11, 2007 Gee Dancer - is the Washington Monthly a tinfoil production?! Maybe you better write in and inform them! Feel free to use the usual acerbic tone you use with everyone here and I'm sure you'll convince them! Afterall - insults and jabs are the way to go eh? Washington Monthly Of course, if I picked my stuff from tinfoil sites like yours, I wouldn't post the links either. Maybe she simply forgot? You could of course ask politely for the link - but that wouldn't be any fun for you would it? :angry: Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
kuzadd Posted September 11, 2007 Author Report Posted September 11, 2007 (edited) Gee Dancer - is the Washington Monthly a tinfoil production?! Maybe you better write in and inform them! Feel free to use the usual acerbic tone you use with everyone here and I'm sure you'll convince them! Afterall - insults and jabs are the way to go eh? Washington Monthly Maybe she simply forgot? You could of course ask politely for the link - but that wouldn't be any fun for you would it? :angry: Thanks B! didn't realize I had forgot the link, oops! Actually further info is available is on the myth of AlQuaeda in Iraq, have you come across any yourself? MDancer,, always shows his weakness, and I love it, when he resorts to smear, meaning I never have to, nor do I take him seriously. Really nor should anyone else, but then, hey some people live for that crap?! Edited September 11, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted September 11, 2007 Author Report Posted September 11, 2007 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353 The Myth of an al Qaeda Takeover of Iraq The notion of al Qaeda using Iraq as a sanctuary is a specter -- a canard that the perpetrators of the current catastrophe use to frighten people into supporting a fatally flawed, and seemingly endless, nation-building debacle. "A September 2006 poll conducted by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 94 percent of Iraqi Sunnis had a somewhat or highly unfavorable attitude toward al Qaeda. As the violence of al Qaeda attacks has mounted, and the victims are increasingly Iraqis, not Americans, many Sunnis have turned against the terrorists. There have been a growing number of reports during the past year of armed conflicts between Iraqi Sunnis and foreign fighters. And the anemic Sunni support for al Qaeda is overshadowed by the intense Shiite and Kurdish hostility to the groupAlmost to a person, they loathe al Qaeda. The PIPA poll showed that 98 percent of Shiite respondents and 100 percent of Kurdish respondents had somewhat or very unfavorable views of the organization. The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda is improbable on its face. Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq's population. And, in marked contrast to the situation under Saddam Hussein, they now control the military and police. At best, al Qaeda could hope for a tenuous presence in predominantly Sunni areas of the country while being incessantly stalked and harassed by government forces -- and probably hostile Iraqi Sunnis as well. That doesn't exactly sound like a reliable base of operations for attacks on America." Nope it doesn't , despite the myth propagated by the US admin, who has the most to gain by continuing with this charade. The ability to justify, to the duped masses, the continuing occupation. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.