Yes, in Iraq.
Yes, in the Pakistani region under their control they are increasing.
I don't know from where you draw this conclusion. I think it's been a constant threat since before 9-11 that al Qaeda was trying to attack the U. S. Homeland. Both during times when they were at their strongest and at times when they were at their weakest.
That's because you're either stupid or willfully ignorant of the facts. Take your pick.
Once again, a foolish, oversimplistic Republican talking point ("We fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here") is proven false, and once again Yoni reveals himself to be a disingenuous turd by invoking some mythical nuance to the prior talking point that never existed.
That's what we think of you !!
Want to know how we're doing with respect to al Qaeda in Iraq?
If you're not familiar with the Pentagon Channel, you should check it out. Check out yesterday's Multi-National Force briefing, led "Iraq Briefing 11 July 2007," by Brigadier General Kevin Bergner. It is the most detailed, fact-intensive discussion of our effort to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq, a principal objective of the "surge," that I have seen.
You won't get this information on the evening news or, apparently, from any sources accessed by Extra Stout; the Defense Department has to carry on what amounts to a guerrilla effort to inform the American people about what it is accomplishing in Iraq -- by creating their own internet channel.
So, speaking for all of "we," are you? And, whomever "we" is, I'm alright with that.
...and now he's changing the subject to the effectiveness of the surge (yeah, we know..."It just got started! Give it more time!) and passing on central issue - WTF does the Iraq occupation have to do with quelling global terroism? Even less than you have claimed for the past 4 years.
Wow, the Pentagon Channel!!!!
Finally, we got our own Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah!!!!!!
Analysts have placed AQ as the 5th threat in Iraq.
Taking out AQ in Iraq will help (but everybody knows more will come), but it won't solve the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd POLITICAL problems that fuel the non-AQ civil war.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17471.html
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thu, June 28, 2007 email | print tool nameclose
tool goes here
WASHINGTON — Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.
The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.
Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
"Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike," Bush asserted. "Al Qaida's responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."
U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.
Bush's references to al Qaida came just days after Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George Voinovich of Ohio broke with Bush over his Iraq strategy and joined calls to begin an American withdrawal.
"The only way they think they can rally people is by blaming al Qaida," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center who's critical of the administration's strategy.
Next month, the Senate is expected to debate the Iraq issue as it considers a Pentagon spending bill. Democrats are planning to offer at least three amendments that seek to change Iraq strategy, including revoking the 2002 resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq and mandating that a withdrawal of troops begin within 120 days.
Bush's use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he'd played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11.
A similar pattern has developed in Iraq, where the U.S. military has cited al Qaida 33 times in a barrage of news releases in the last seven days, and some news organizations have echoed the drumbeat. Last month, al Qaida was mentioned only nine times in U.S. military news releases.
In his speech, Bush referred only fleetingly to the sectarian violence that pits Sunni Muslim insurgents against Shiite Muslim militias in bloody -for-tat attacks, bombings, atrocities and forced mass evictions from contested areas of Baghdad and other cities and towns.
U.S. intelligence agencies and military commanders say the Sunni-Shiite conflict is the greatest source of violence and insecurity in Iraq.
"Extremists — most notably the Sunni jihadist group al Qaida in Iraq and Shia oppositionist Jaysh al-Mahdi — continue to act as very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining struggle between Shia and Sunnis," the National Intelligence Council wrote in the unclassified key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq published in January. Jaysh al Mahdi is Arabic for the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.
The council comprises the top U.S. intelligence analysts, and a National Intelligence Estimate is the most comprehensive assessment it produces for the president and a small number of his senior aides. It reflects the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
In his speech, Bush made other questionable assertions.
He claimed that U.S. troops were fighting "block by block" in Baqouba, a city northeast of Baghdad, as part of an offensive to clear out al Qaida fighters.
But Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said earlier this month that 80 percent of the insurgents American troops expected to encounter in Baqouba had fled before the operation began, including much of the insurgent leadership.
There was little heavy fighting. Out of 10,000 U.S. troops involved, only one has been killed.
Bush categorically blamed al Qaida for the Feb. 22, 2006, bombing of the Askariya mosque, a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra whose destruction accelerated sectarian bloodshed.
But no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, and U.S. officials say there's no proof that al Qaida in Iraq was responsible, only strong su ions.
Critics of the war are questioning the administration's increasing references to al Qaida.
"We cannot attribute all the violence in Iraq to al Qaida," retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq before becoming an opponent of Bush's strategy there, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. "Al Qaida is certainly a component, but there's larger components."
Bush just can't stop twisting the truth. yes Yoni I acknowledge that Bush isn't lying but he sure as is playing loose with the facts..
Well, I thought the media reports were contradictory, but don't let that stop you from jumping on anybody who might even seem to deviate from the talking points, you mindless partisan hack.
I think the article you quoted is playing loose with the facts.
That's right. Since the surge began more and more of the Sectarian groups are allying with the U.S. to fight al Qaeda. So, this would be a true statement. The majority of the danger to U. S. troops in Iraq comes from the few Iraqis associated with al Qaeda and al Qaeda itself.
Again, this may be true but that doesn't mean al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq. Zarqawi arrived there, from Afghanistan, shortly after the U. S. invasion of Afghanistan and started building an organization that was loyal to al Qaeda and bin Laden...as we evidenced by the communication between Zarwahri and Zarqawi early in the conflict.
Saying this is like saying the myriad of "Palestinian" terrorist groups that popped up and faded away, over the years, didn't share an ideology or allegiance with Yasser Arafat's Fatah simply because they didn't exist as a named organization prior to their ins ution.
So? They identify themselves as al Qaeda and that they aren't centrally controlled only supports the current view that al Qaeda has "franchised" out and decentralized.
As for the rest of the article, particularly the parts you bolded, you (and they) seem to be arguing al Qaeda isn't a major force in Iraq and hasn't been responsible for much of the more spectacular violence over the course of the war there.
We disagree. You seem to be comfortable the Mainstream Media is telling you everything and, just by looking at Michael Yon's blog alone, I can tell you they're not even coming close to giving an accurate picture of al Qaeda's influence in Iraq...or, for that matter, the U.S. progress with formerly violent sectarian groups there.
One example of something I've yet to hear in the Mainstream Media.
The Iraqis sure seem to believe al Qaeda is a significant presence in Iraq.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote