For years we’ve heard that Al Queda is more powerful than ever. Well, that’s good political reporting for one side of the aisle, but it’s not the truth according to the latest intelligence reporting.
While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
I wonder how much damage abu Ghraib’s coverage did, as well as the bombing of the Golden Mosque, to foment sectarian violence and chaos.
We would have been further ahead in the war had it not been for the press and the Democrats in Congress cheering them on.
The threat from Al-Qaeda was exaggerated from the get go.
Isn’t surprising that a dose of reality seems to have entered the intelligence community.
Though I understand Rachel Ray is a recent recruit.
On what planet is that true? Not earth. Congradulations, you have proved you swallow and regurgitate your leftist talking points well.
AQ’s brutality and exposing Islamic people to what the AQ caliphate would actually be have soured the Islamic people to AQ. Even people in Saudi Arabia and other pro-AQ areas are now souring to them. Algeria, who has suffered a decade or more of AQ’s attacks, is making life so difficult for Bin Laden’s brats that they are now reportedly contacing the Berber tribes for help. The Berbers will most likely take AQ’s money and shoot them.
Arthur, you may want to tell the families of the soldiers in Somalia (perhaps better known to you via movie Black Hawk Down) that the threat from AQ was exaggerated. Maybe tell that to the injured from WTC 1993. Perhaps the families of those who died in the Cole would like to hear your insight as well. Then of course, the families of the WTC, Pentagon and Flight 93 might also stand in line to hear you expound too… wonder if you’d be able to walk away without being egged. There’s more incidents, too. But I’m guessing you’ll at least be aware these events happened.
Guess we shoulda gotten out of Iraq before 1993. DOH… we weren’t there then, were we? We weren’t even in Afghanistan. And the “great Satan” that year was Clinton, not Bush. Guess that won’t fly…
You really can’t be this naive, right? This is just a bait to get the rankles up???
MataHarley wondered:
You really can’t be this naive, right? This is just a bait to get the rankles up???
If ‘naive’ is believing the Administration’s invasion of Iraq was a gross over-reaction to an attack launched by Saudi nationals squandering every ounce of good will the US had received post-9/11 then I’m guilty as charged. If anything regime change in Saudi Arabia & Pakistan would have been in order. You know. Deal with the people actually funding and harboring the enterprise.
By gawd, you are that naive, Arthur. The 911 terrorists could have been from Kansas, for all I care. They are members of the AQ umbrella. They are terrorists first, nationals second. Even human cockroaches had to be born somewhere on the planet.
America’s “good will”? You must be too young to know that America has never been much loved. Perhaps a reminder that “The Ugly American” was published in 1958. Hard to come up with that title if we were the benefit of such national “good will”. And BTW, I don’t give a flying fart if we aren’t loved. I do not judge our nation as reflected in the int’l community’s eyes. Do you believe your own value as a human comes from what others think of you?
The US is only tolerated for our economic base and our military superiority. I’ll take respect and fear over love and “good will” anyday. The world does not say thank you to American for anything. Charitable actions, or saving their proverbial butts in times of war.
Regime change in Saudi and Pakistan because they were harborin and funding? You are hopeless. The main base of AQ was “harbored” in Afghanistan since the mid 90s. Before that they were “harbored” in Sudan. As far as funding, you’ll find they received funds from even places based in the US. It was international.
MataHarley typed:
As far as funding, you’ll find they received funds from even places based in the US. It was international.
Bingo.
Except for Iraq that is.
Turned up there later.
Cheers.
That, Arthur, is totally debatable. Per the Harmony document ISGQ-2003-M0006960, found in the Iraqi Perspectives Project made available to the public this past march, Saddam funded operations in Somalia with the express purpose of “hunting Americans on Arab soil”. Coincidently, OBL and al Qaeda were doing the same thing at the same time in Somalia. And it is known that AQ who trained and equipped the Somalians who attacked the US forces there.
Were Saddam and AQ working parallel on the same goal – separate and apart – in the very same time period? Or were they sharing assets, funds, while working on the same goal at the exact same time. Logic would indicate they would team up as they were not at cross purposes.
Saddam is documented as dealing with Zawahiri since 1993… coincidently at the very same time. Saddam funded EIJ (Zawahiri’s Egytian jihad organization). Did Saddam give the money to Zawahiri’s EIJ, who then funded AQ? And do you consider this funding by Saddam, when he knew very well the alliances of EIJ and their quest?
Also so coincidental that, at that same time, Somalians were in Iraq’s training camps.
The only thing missing for this being an absolute “smoking gun” that would make you happy is the record of a check cut directly to AQ, or a shipping invoice for weaponry that was used. Neither of which any self-respecting terrorist or criminal would do… leave that implicit of a paper trail. Plus, I don’t think they ship weaponry FedEx or UPS.