Iraq Assessment

The Pakistanis claimed it was AQ but AQ released a statement that they were NOT involved. And yes, I am sure of that.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

Al Qaeda, arguably the most prolific terrorist organization in modern history, has no ties to terrorism?

---

Who said anything about Al Qaeda? We're talking about "Al Qaeda in Iraq." The two are not the same. AQI has no connection to Al Qaeda.

quote:

---

So, just let the country go to shit and call that "diplomacy?"

---

Huh? What part of "diplomacy" equates to "let the country go to shit"?And by the way, the country has already gone to shit. Things are worse now than before we invaded. They are in the middle of a civil war and we will not be able to stop it. The country is going to be split into pieces and the sooner we realize this and work to make it happen, the better off everybody will be.

quote:

---

Tal is there right NOW!

---

What does that have to do with anything? Just because he's in the military and in a specific location, that means he knows everything that is going on? NJ, the Bush administration has lied to everybody involved at every level regarding this invasion. The majority of Soldiers still think Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why? Because the Bush administration lied to the Soldiers.

quote:

---

They don't mention the number of schools that have been built or the progress in general.

---

First, there aren't that many being built. There's no electricity or water for them.Second, if it gets out that a school was built, it becomes a target and gets blown up real quick. Thus, the reporters do their best to keep the people of Iraq alive and keep quiet about it.

quote:

---

Source, please...

---

That would be the reporters. You have been paying attention, yes? You've not read anything about the bomb threats to schools? Oh, but that would have been reported on NPR. And we all know how misinformed NPR listeners are....

quote:

---

You could almost swear that you pray for disaster

---

Prove it. Show me a single quote that even hints at that. Note the doublethink going on here, NJ: You're claiming that because I want to bring the Soldiers home so that they don't die, that means I want them to die. Does that make any sense to you?And by the way, you have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

quote:

---

The idea is to siege a city.

---

That wasn't what we were told when Bush said that he needed to do it. The justification for adding more dead bodies was so that the Iraqi government could stabilize and meet its benchmarks. But when it became apparent that that wasn't going to happen, they changed their minds and came up with another justification. And yet, 2007 was the most violent year ever, so the new justification hasn't panned out, either.

quote:

---

You keep doing this with the troop increase, until the entire country is secured

---

And 20,000 Soldiers is going to do that? When you really need 15 times that amount? Since the escalation was doomed to failure and everybody knew it, what was the point? We shouldn't throw Soldiers at the problem just to have them die.Again, NJ: You need to explain how wanting to bring our Soldiers home so they don't die somehow means that I want them to die.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Rrhain is alleging that the violence is only because of a civil war. That's not even remotely the case. Sectarian violence is just that -- sectarian violence.

---

Ahem."Sectarian violence" is, by definition, "civil war." It was coined in order to be a euphemism for it. If the Bush administration had to admit that Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, then it would have to admit that it failed in its mission to bring stability and peace to the region.But simply calling it "sectarian violence" doesn't change the fact that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war.

quote:

---

This is not to say that groups like Al Qaeda aren't funding the insurgency, because they are!

---

Except they aren't. There is no support from Al Qaeda to AQI. In fact, Al Qaeda does not like AQI because AQI keeps on attacking the Sunni.

quote:

---

If the people that refer to themselves, or who the Bush Administration refers to as, Al Qaeda (in Iraq), are not in fact affiliated with Al Qaeda, then who are they?

---

You mean you don't know? You have no idea who al-Zarqawi was? What his history was? AQI is nothing more than the renamed group al-Zarqawi was previously fronting: Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. They changed their name when al-Zarqawi decided he was a wannabe.They have no connection to Al Qaeda.

quote:

---

And how exactly do you know that they aren't affiliated with Al Qaeda?

---

Because Al Qaeda doesn't claim them.

quote:

---

Was the assassination of Bhutto also not affiliated with AQ?

---

It wasn't.

quote:

---

Where are you getting your information?

---

From Al Qaeda. Who would better know?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

You can apply that argument to all of the groups.The claim against a time table was that the various terrorists groups would simply lay low and wait till we were gone. So my points is we should have taken them up on that claim, used the peaceful time to solidify power and then renege on our timetable claim.I agree the whole follow us home argument is crap as Iraq does nothing to prevent a homeland attack.

obvious Child responds to me:

quote:

---

You can apply that argument to all of the groups.

---

Well, no. There are terrorists who are plotting against the United States, specifically. One of them is called "Al Qaeda" and their leader, Osama bin Laden, is still at large wandering between Afghanistan and Pakistan, pretty much because the Bush administration has completely forgotten about him. Bush said so, himself: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him."And despite the fact that we were "fighting them over there," Al Qaeda still managed to hit us over here as London and Madrid and Bali can tell us. The reason Al Qaeda hasn't hit the US has nothing to do with any state of preparedness on our part.

quote:

---

The claim against a time table was that the various terrorists groups would simply lay low and wait till we were gone.

---

But there weren't any terrorists there...at least, not "terrorists" in the sense that they were plotting against the US. There are plenty of combatants in Iraq who are doing their best to take control of the country. That's why they're in civil war.As for lying about our leaving, that would never have flown with either the military or the population. To tell the ranks that they're going home on a specific date and then to yank it away would incite rebellion. Granted, we've been toying with the troops as it is, constantly extending their deployment tours beyond all sanity, but we've never told them that they were getting out.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

And where did you get that analysis from?

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

This is not to say that groups like Al Qaeda aren't funding the insurgency, because they are!

​

Rrhain writes:

​

Except they aren't. There is no support from Al Qaeda to AQI.

---

quote:

---

They have no connection to Al Qaeda.

---

quote:

---

Because Al Qaeda doesn't claim them.

---

quote:

---

Was the assassination of Bhutto also not affiliated with AQ?

It wasn't.

---

I have to say Rrhain, your statements have such an absoluteness to them that I guess I have no choice but to believe you. Your sources and intelligence network must be phenomenal!/sarcasm off Bhutto killing blamed on al-QaedaAl Qaeda Offers Cell-Phone Downloads of Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri VideosYou keep replying to me asking, "Where is the evidence?" and I keep supplying you with more open source information. You don't need anything from the secret squirrel network to figure out that Al Qaeda in Iraq is actually Al Qaeda...fighting in Iraq.This will be my last post to you on this particular subject unless you start linking or posting source information. Otherwise it is just you yelling "The sky is green!" over and over. People can follow our posts to each other and decide for themselves.

---

We never seem to acknowledge that we have been wrong in the past, and so might be wrong in the future. Instead, each generation writes off earlier errors as the result of bad thinking by less able minds-and then confidently embarks on fresh errors of its own. --Michael Crichton

Sorry that you must take valuable time helping folks in Iraq to answer die-hard skeptics, but you seem to be doing a fine job a that, too.To reinforce what you are saying...First, I don't see how anyone can realistically conclude anything about the Bhutto assassination with so little evidence at this point.Second, it seems that saying AQI created in Iraq is not from Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is login akin to Intelligent Design, which ironic, coming from the people promoting the disconnection.Third, to say that AQI is not a threat to USA is so irrelevant, since by definition their purpose at this time is to fight in Iraq, and you cannot say for sure they do not intend no harm to us in the future, as their AQ moniker Jihad goals state.My questions to you in the Assessment are:
1. Do you think the Iraqis are aware that the Americans may pull out relatively quiclky based on a 2008 election result if a Democrat like Obama or Edwards wins?
2. Are they getting enthusiastic about running their own country and resisting insurgents?

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

You keep replying to me asking, "Where is the evidence?" and I keep supplying you with more open source information.

---

Except it seems you don't bother to read your own sources. From your first one: Given Musharraf's current position, do you really think you can trust what he says?And your second source is Fox, which is to be dismissed out of hand. Besides, it doesn't show any connection between Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq. It just says that there are videos available of Al Qaeda people with one talking about al-Zarqawi.You seem to have a very black-and-white sort of view about this: That the only possible relationship between AQ and AQI were that of perfect allies or bitter enemies and thus any positive comment by one toward the other means they're bosom buddies. AQ certainly didn't mind AQI's attacks upon US forces and their use as a political rallying cry against the United States was certainly useful, but that doesn't make them connected anymore than China's "Most Favored Nation" status here in the US means we are allies.There is no connection between Al Qaeda and "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and you have not shown a single shred of proof that there is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

obvious Child responds to me:

quote:

---

And where did you get that analysis from?

---

From paying attention to the news.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.