Counterterrorism Analyst Raises Doubts About Alleged Death Of Top Al Qaeda Leader
Counterterrorism Analyst Raises Doubts About Alleged Death Of Top Al Qaeda Leader
Yesterday, the U.S. military announced that it had recently killed Abu Usama al-Tunisi, billed as “one of the most senior leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq.”
ThinkProgress noted yesterday that there was evidence to suggest al-Tunisi may have been killed a year ago. An online posted published in May 2006 by al Qaeda supporters hailed the “martyrdom” of al-Tunisi. A translation of the martyrdom message was posted online by terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann in July 2006.
We left open the possibility that “there could have been two different Abu Usama al-Tunisis.” Writing on the Counterterrorism Blog, Kohlmann has weighed in to try to resolve the discrepancy:
Is it possible that there are two separate Abu Usama al-Tunisis serving as commanders for Al-Qaida in Iraq? Perhaps… but the likelihood of this incredible coincidence rapidly plummets when one considers that both of these men have been identically described as the commander of Al-Qaida’s Aeisha Brigade and active in the area of al-Yusifiya.
Indeed, the military announcement yesterday and the “martyrdom” announcement one year ago relate the same background information about al-Tunisi. Kohlmann continues:
If we put aside this theory, we are left with quite limited possibilities. It would seem that either Al-Qaida supporters were engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign on their own password-protected chat forums, or else the U.S. military has potentially been the victim of questionable intelligence.
It should be further noted that Al-Qaida has prided itself in the past on providing accurate and timely information concerning the “martyrdom” of its military commanders. When former Al-Qaida commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in mid-2006, the same Al-Hesbah Network [the network that reported al-Tunisi’s death] was one of the first sources to correctly confirm the news of his death on behalf of Al-Qaida.
Given all the reasons Kohlmann suggests for doubting the military’s claims, there should have been a responsibility on the part of journalists to double-check this story before reporting it. However, today’s mentions of al-Tunisi in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Associated Press fail to resolve — much less mention — this important discrepancy.
UPDATE: After doubts were raised about the recent death of al-Tunisi, counterterrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann wrote of confirmation that Tunisi did in fact die in a raid recently.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
56 Responses to “Counterterrorism Analyst Raises Doubts About Alleged Death Of Top Al Qaeda Leader”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
How silly to expect the press do actually do it’s job.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:02 amIt should be easy to keep track of these guys. Aren’t they on a deck of playing cards?? Maybe the administration keeps a couple of extra aces up its sleeve.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:08 amIf it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck……it probably just another piece of Bush propaganda. So what else is new??
September 29th, 2007 at 8:14 amAnother one of their juvenile, ridiculous concepts: A deck of playing cards. This is right out of Bush’s days when he owned the Texas Rangers and had his mug put on a playing card because he was jealous…..complete with fictionalized stats to boot. He’s never grown up and still acts like a bully juvenile delinquent.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:15 amAnd he’s still dealing with fictionalized stats and feeding them to his fall guys like Petreus and Congress! What’s changed??
September 29th, 2007 at 8:16 amThat’s why we need the nasty old Netroots!
September 29th, 2007 at 8:21 amWonder if this will get as much play as Norman Hsu?
Rudy’s top fundraiser sole backer of California electoral vote initiative
Doubt it.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:25 amhttp://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 09/ nice-explosion-though.html
BREAKING! FIRST BLACKWATER USA SEP 16th pics surfaced
September 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am>As I suggested 50 posts ago, if he is dead
>we quit hunting him.
> It was suggested as
>a possibility instead of assuming our military is lying.
Except there is absoltutely NO, and I repeat ZERO evidence of a AQ ever having used a lie OF THIS SORT, FOR THIS PURPOSE, before.
SOnny boy.. everybody lies. Every government, military, para-military, terrorist, freedom fighter group lies. Thats not the point.. the point is asking “what is person lying about†“why are they lying†and “what is the history of this TYPE of liesâ€..
so can you PLEASE, “for the recordâ€, jake, point us to past instances where AQ has used the TACTIC of trying to throw us off thier leaders trails by lying about their deaths?
Because I guarantee you I can show you instances of the military having killed the same person multiple times.
wake up. there are NO good guys in this world. the myth that america has been uniquely blessed by some divine being is, in the words of your straussian heroes, a “noble lieâ€.
ask tens of thousands of dead civilians in central america whether the united states fund terrorist groups. american officials have been convicted of lying to congress about it. its a matter of record.
“for the recordâ€, let me ask you a hypotehtical… a brutal middle eastern dictator claims he has posession of no weapons of mass destruction. george bush insists that he does, and that he knows where they are. they are north, south, east and west of tiktrik.
who do you beleive our president, or the brutal middle eastern dictator?
September 29th, 2007 at 9:26 amJournalism, as we know it in this country, has drastically changed during the Bush Administration. Gone is the caveat known as “truth in reporting” and anyone’s whims, hyperbole, and outright fiction is now paraded as Truth.
It’s taken some time for the people to become educated and to realize that they must seriously question everything in print media and everything they hear on the televised news programs. The onus of responsibility for ascertaining what is real and truth and cull it from the downright fiction these days rests clearly on the shoulders of each american. Clearly, the journalism industry has become a “complicit partner” in the lies, spin and propaganda of this government.
Propaganda campaigns have been used in the decline of all great countries and empires throughout time. Respectable and truthful journalism was one of the features which helped maintain respectability within this country and from afar. This is sadly gone from our landscape now, thanks to GWB and his fascist regime.
Forewarned is to be forearmed: Believe absolutely NOTHING you read in the newspapers or hear on the television because the Truth is filtered through fascist ownership eyes. It is then edited and presented with the slant they need to control the masses.
It’s all one huge “dog and pony show” at this point. Intelligent people rely on doing their own research and get things straight from the horse’s mouth - rather than obtaining it from fascist pigs with a vested interest in controlling our thoughts and actions.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:32 amThe bottom line is this: Believe nothing coming from the Bush White House or any of their henchmen. It’s all lies, spin, hyperbole, and fiction. It’s taken from 1984 and Hitler’s play book.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:34 amI love the “one of the senior-most leaders” label.
They must have gotten tired of announcing yet another “#3″ as being killed in Iraq. Either that, or they finally realized we caught on to that little game years ago.
Now, IIRC, this isn’t the first time they’ve “suddenly” announced the capture of someone that’s been dead for more than a year. Am I wrong?
September 29th, 2007 at 10:01 amSurrender to whom? Wasn’t our mission already accomplished? Isn’t the Iraqi government in charge. We’re not surrendering, we’re just leaving!
September 29th, 2007 at 10:01 amCompletely off topic:
I would just like to say that there’s only two people I will vote for:
Russ or Dennis
September 29th, 2007 at 10:25 amI questioned the information. When it was a big story on Fox, and buried or non-existent at the other fast-food news outlets, I questioned it.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:31 amThen you get this nice artist rendering of the guy. Ha.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:32 amAnother media sloppiness note: when reviewing the stories I found about this latest “achievement”, I read a Boston Globe story that completely failed to refer to the organization as al Qaida In Iraq, but only as al Qaida - two different organizations. Glad to see they’re paying attention.
BTW, I love the moniker “CaptainMantastic”. Obviously a courageous fighter who’s on his way to Iraq even as we speak to fight for truth, justice and the American way.
You are on your way, right, Captain? The military’s stretched pretty thin; they could use a few more brave souls like you.
PS: about your remark:
Well, sir, our heroic ex- fighter pilot president told us, a few years ago, that he didn’t know where bin Laden was but that he wasn’t “that concerned about him.” So why are you so concerned about him, if Bush isn’t? After all, he’s The Decider…
Do send a postcard from Iraq. We’ll be worried about you.
PPS: thanks for citing that Wikipedia entry; as we all know, if it’s in Wikipedia, it must be true.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:43 am>Do you deny that al-Qaeda is in Iraq?
Who the hell keeps track of whose in Al-Queda anyway?
Do they have a “personell department”?
Do they have a job application hotline you can fax your application to?
Can you show us an example of ANYONE who was ever denied al-queda membership?
I’m sorry, but how many high ranking AQ peopel do you think moved to Iraq from Afghantistan or our ALLY Pakistan, after we invaded?
Probably about zero.
Zaquiri was a nobody until we started blaming ever bad thing that happened in iraq on him.. we made him a myth with our desparate desire to blame everything on a boogeyman.
What percentage of foreigners do you think make up the insurgents we are fighting in iraq? do you have a quote?
How many iraqis were part of al-queda BEFORE we invaded…do you have a quote on that one either?
September 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am>“Do you really think if we leave al Qaeda alone,
> they will just peacefully abandon their ideology?â€
Do you think by fillling the TV screens of the Middle East with images of dead iraqi women and children we are going to decrease the number of recruits signing up for radical islamic groups?
are you truly so naive as to think we can “kill em all” without making more?
you know even your hero Rumsfeld said he didnt know whether we were killing more terrorists than we were creating.. do you know more than him?
September 29th, 2007 at 11:08 amBut, maybe the bigger point you should consider is this: How many al Qaeda leaders will we be killing after we surrender Iraq?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 29, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Hopefully it will be the ones coming this w/ boxcutters, but Bush couldn’t catch them last time, so, quite frankly, I’m worried.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:12 amOr, are you so partisanly opposed to Bush, that you just don’t care?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 29, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Or are you such an ideological idiot that you can’t possibly understand what’s wrong w/ Bush’s approach to this whole subject matter?
September 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amhttp://www.cnn.com/ 2007/ WORLD/ meast/ 09/ 29/ iraq.main/ index.html
last paragraph:
“Coalition forces killed the militant Tuesday in Mussayib, south of Baghdad, said Anderson, who emphasized the death is “a significant blow” to al Qaeda in Iraq — a Sunni-dominated militant group THAT TAKES ITS INSPIRATION from Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.”
ergo, the leaders of Al-Queda in Iraq are not the leaders of Al -Queda
Congratulations, you heroes invasion is causing people to get inspired by al-queda! thanks!
September 29th, 2007 at 11:18 amCongratulations, you heroes invasion is causing people to get inspired by al-queda! thanks!
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — September 29, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Careful, CJ… you could be seen as giving aid to the enemy…
September 29th, 2007 at 11:20 amBut, but, but . . . it says “Al Qaeda” . . .
Keep in mind, Righties, that East Germany called itself Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the German Democratic Republic. Do you think that it was democratic? That it was a republic?
September 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am>you could be seen as giving aid to the enemy
right..under these frighteningly liberal interpretations of the words “aid” and “enemy” that are being thrown around these days, it probably wont be long before people like me could. i’m all for things being liberally intepreted, except anything involving punishment or punitive measures, which should, of course, we interpreted as narrowly as possible…
but i guess its only until this “war” on “terror” is over… which ..uhm..should be.. at about half past never…
BTW folks, the Us Military Commisions Act gave us a new catchy phrase: “enemy of the state” which can be applied to anyone, american citizen or not…. habeaus corpus is gone folks, read the fine print.. thank god we’ve taken justice out of the hands of judges and into the hands of people who know where the WMD is…
September 29th, 2007 at 11:35 amRumsfelds own words:
http://www.defenselink.mil/ transcripts/ transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3698
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Well, see, I don’t know that I said what you said. I think I wrote a memo that asked the question.
BENNETT: Okay. Okay.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Are the madrassas producing more —
BENNETT: Okay.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: — terrorists? These extreme radical madrassas, are they producing more terrorists every week or month than we’re able to capture or kill?
And I don’t know the answer, and I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that. But it is a fair question, it seems to me. I asked that back in 2003, I believe. And what I was trying to point out to the people in the Department of Defense was that there’s a tendency when you call this a global war on terror to think of it as a war of big militaries — armies, navies, and air forces — against armies, navies and air forces, and it is not. It is a totally different thing, and it is not something that the Army is going to be able to prevail and — or the Navy and have a signing ceremony on the USS Missouri at the end of World War II. It is going to be something that’s going to take time. It’s going to be a long struggle. It’s a struggle basically within the Muslim faith of a small minority of violent extremists against the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not violent extremists, and we need to find ways to empower and strengthen those moderates who are determined to not have their faith hijacked by these violent extremists.
APPARENTLY WE STRENGTHEN MODERATES BY KILLING SOME OF THEM, ALONG WITH SOME RADICALS AS WELL. LET GOD (OR HIS IDENTICAL TWIN ALLAH) SORT THEM OUT
September 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am> If our invasion of Iraq is inspiring terrorists,
> wouldn’t our invasion of Afganistan
> (that I have seen many here support)
> also do the same thing?
Your saying Iraq had as much to do with 9-11 as Afghanistan did?
You do understand causation right?
I’m not saying we should never do anything to turn people against us, im saying we should have a GOOD, REASONABLE reason for doing it. If we do, we will turn many many less people against us.
To answer your question, no, Afghanistan did not “do the same thing in equal proportions”, because, well, most of the world saw the nexus between 9-11 and afghanistan. In afghanistan we had most of the world behind us. The violence in Afghanistan has not created nearly as much bad publicity for the united states as Iraq did.
Do you understand that people from (or who were trained in) Afghanistan attacked us and people from Iraq didnt?
Does cause and effect make sense to you? When some young guy throws a rock at you, do you go beat up the old lady down the street and say “well if i beat up the guy who threw a rock at me, wont his family get just as mad as the old lady’s”?
“For the record, do the progressives here support the mission in Afganistan, or not?”
For the record, do religious republicans support gay sex in bathrooms and hiring meth dealing male prostitutes or not?
I suspect you’ll find a variety of support on this board from liberals for the afghan conflict. Since its a group of people with different beleifs, its pretty hard to acribe one opinion for all of them, in the same way its hard to ascribe one belief being held by republicans about the morality of guys buggering other guys.
I think as far as afghanistan goes, your going to get everything on the spectrum, from grudging support to enthusiantic chest thumping.
Then theres peopel like me.
Me, I think this is all a scam. I think the taliban are scum, I think the people running our government are scum, I pretty much think that almost any person drunk with power, as almost any politician or warlord is, is scum .
You do know that as late as 2000, the taliban were down in texass negotating for a pipeline through their country right? they broke off negotiations, and some theats were made against them. So who knows all of what went on. I think thier all crooks, all nuts, all scumbags. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
truer words were never said.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pmOn this one, Bush’s logic will sound something like, “We’re killing the terrorist now so we uhh, uhh don’t have to kill him back then.” It’s a different kind of war we’re wagin!
But seriously, if we keep following the same failed policies, why would it matter if we killed a “Top Al Qaeda Leader?” They keep recruiting, so whenever we kill one, the vanquished leader gets replaced. We never seem to shrink their organization.
Replace Bushco and try a new tactic that many in the industry have been using for years now. I believe they call it the “Better” way.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm>Are the body bags coming from Afganistan somehow more acceptable >than the body bags coming from Iraq?
For those that understand the simple concept that Afghanistan was involved in 9-11 and Iraq was not, yes.
>Is our presense in Afganistan somehow less offensive to Islamic jihadists >than our presense in Iraq?
No, but are you so completely naive as to think that “jihadists” are the only ones who are offended by our acts in iraq?
Did you even read what you hero rumsfeld wrote.. how many jihadists are being CREATED?… do you now children arent BORN terrorists, right?
>Is 9/11, seen as a criminal Bush administration plot used to justify an >illegal invasion of Iraq; somehow sound justification for our actions in >Afganistan?
Uhhmmm.. well, since most people of the world understood that the people who trained and supported the hijackers were being sheltered by the aghanistan government, us simply attackign aghanistan wasnt very convincing evidence that 9-11 was a criminal bush pretext… however, when we attacked a country with had NOTHING to do with 9-11, that gave MUCH MUCH more weight to those who said 9-11 was a fabricated pretext.
do you understand cause and effect?
>If our withdrawl from Iraq will so surely quell jihadist anger; wouldn’t it >seem just as prudent to withdraw from Afganistan?
The point, moron, is not to “quell jihadist anger” as you desparately want to claim the point is… its to STOP CREATING NEW TERRORISTS for no good reason!!!
ANswer me this? Are jihadists born jihadists?
Do you understand that us attacking a muslim country that has nothing to do with 9-11 is actually EVIDENCE that 9-11 was merely a pretext? You DO understand that there are some peopel who will understand our invading Afghanistan but not Iraq, right?
>So, if you support the withdrawl from Afganistan
What I support is irrelevant. I just know that turning the world against us by attacking and continuing to occupy a country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11 is an enormous mistake. Moreso than any other conflict I may or may not morally agree with.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pm>>most of the world saw the nexus between 9-11 and afghanistan.
>Is there consensus here that it was al Qaeda and not Bush that carried >out 9/11?
you answer my question first: do you trolls have a consesus about gay sex in bathrooms and hiring meth dealing male prostitutes or not?
besides, I’m talking about world opinion and your talking about opinion on a blog so small it doesnt even get mentioned by billo? apples and organges
ok, I’ll bite.. but: Are there only two options: Bush or Bin Laden? It couldnt be both? thier families had worked together before you know…. or how about.. Al-Queda did it, but Bush + Co knew it would happen, and let it happen for political benefit. granted, this is a kooky theory, only subscribed to by a few kooks from the looony left wing reagan administration.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
i dont pretend to speak for anyone but me, but my intuition is they knew about it and let it happen.. i dont think they actively planned it…
is there a consensus about who killed Kennedy? the bullets or the gun?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm>If you then leave the old lady to be beaten and raped by the neighbors;
>(instead of staying in an effort to protect her) have you repaired the ill-will >you caused by beating her up in the first place?
Hahaha. Your taking the methaphor to a ridiculous extreme. Whose the old lady? The Sunni or the Shia? Which one are we trying to protect smart guy?
This “rape and murder” isnt happening already? I’m sorry, I guess I missed the THOUSANDS of iraqis that are dying in iraq with us there. And you know what… most of them are killing EACH OTHER. But at this point, you know who it gets blamed on.. US.. because we’re there. And nothing is going to stop it. Please, please point to me the evidence that ANY political reconciliation is occuring. The neighbors are beating and raping each other.
> would our reputation be repaired more readily by abandoning the >situation to chaos (for the world to see on cable news)
ITS CHAOS NOW MORON! ITS BEING SEEN NOW!!
> or by staying long enough to stabilize the country and assist the new >government in an orderly transfer of power.
once again please point to ANY political reconiliation that is occuring ? you DO know the surge was supposed to BUY TIME for the political reconcilition, right?
You DO know that Maliki is pissed at betrayus because hes arming sunnis right? you do know the sunnis are still hostile to the central government, dont you?
oh, and if that stabilized government gets stabilized by help from Iran, who they democratically choose to become like, will that be worth all our blood and treasure?
how much of our blood and treasure it is worth for us to let iraq be islamic as they wanna be?
did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, saddam was brutal for a reason, because well,that was the only way to keep iraq together as a country? do you think that perphaps that the choas you see now is what happens when you give peopel with NO history as a unified country “Freedom”..
how does the “freedom” the palestenians had to choose their government settle with ya?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm>Although we disagree, I don’t consider you a moron.
you kill me with kindness sir. its been a long night, im going to bed, continue arguing with me on another thread if you so choose..
September 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pmNo new threads yet, so I’ll post this here (from Crooks and Liars):
How much money does Bush think a US soldier’s life is worth? How much money does Bush think the lives of our allies’ soldiers or innocent Iraqis are worth?
As we’re finding out, not very much. On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ,†yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …†When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy.
Just last week we learned from former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that the real reason behind the war in Iraq was oil , and now we are finding out that the entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That’s just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country’s bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Every single death, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam’s oil, but apparently he didn’t even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless. How’s that for compassionate conservatism?
Wow.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSince absolutely no one holds this administration accountable for anything, why don’t they just advertise:
‘We’ve now killed all Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and we’ve uncovered Saddam’s stockpile of wmds’.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:55 pmIf the Bush administration could have gotten Saddam out for a mere billion dollars, we’d now have the resources to deal with other external threats. How’s it feel to know three thousand plus soldiers, and over four hundred billion have been wasted?
September 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThe CIA is running out of money if all they can post as a top Al-Queda member is a poorly photo shopped image of ‘Billy the Kid’.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:00 pmi want to see Al-Queda kill top American commander Petraues
Comment by jason baddo — September 29, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Probably not a good idea to voice such sentiments like this here…
September 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pm“i want to see Al-Queda kill top American commander Petraues”
Comment by jason
Why?
September 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmComment by Clumberfeet — September 29, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
i was wonderin’ why that face looked familiar… yer right… he does look like Billy the Kid! Good call!
September 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhy?
Comment by barfly — September 29, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
This could well be someone just rying to make the site look bad.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm“I was wonderin’ why that face looked familiar…”
It looks like a young Martin Mull.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pmHowever, you folks feel free side with our enemies if you feel the need to.
Otherwise, there appears to be no issue here.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
God, yer a stone MORON from Hell. Such a devilishly clever plot by Al Kaidi!!! Announce the death of a top commander a full YR ahead of time, so’s when the Infidel Americans kills him, it’ll make them American Invaders look bad. Damn! Yer too quick fer us, Li’l Footie!
September 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThis could well be someone just rying to make the site look bad.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
I know; but was hoping to bait him into exposing himself as a troll.
Oh, well…
September 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIt looks like a young Martin Mull.
Comment by barfly — September 29, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Wait a minute… are you saying Martin Mull was in Al Qaida? And Billy the Kid too? Good Lord! Have Al Qaida been planning to take over this country since the 1880’s?
September 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pmOh, well…
Comment by barfly — September 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Yeah… well, considering the IQ of yer average troll (hint: B*g F&&t), you might well get yer chance.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pmHow’s it feel to know three thousand plus soldiers, and over four hundred billion have been wasted?
Comment by barfly — September 29, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Probably feels pretty good at Blackwater and Halliburton…
September 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm“Probably feels pretty good at Blackwater and Halliburton…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
‘09 will be a circus. I’m betting that even now there are lawyers gearing up to sue these guys back to the Stone Ages. They see the reports of missing funds and abused employees, and they see nothing but dollar signs - and with a democratically-controlled investigation-hungry Congress doing their discovery work for them. Dick Cheney will then become an anchor around their slimy necks.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmWhy is anyone surprised at the lies. What’s really going to be bad is if one of those fake Saddam’s show up. Remember the real Saddam had men made to look like him and the US had no DNA to prove his identity. The Rambo looking Al Qaeda dude might alive too. Next we’ll told Al Qaeda will be said they have 9 lives like a cat.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmDick Cheney will then become an anchor around their slimy necks.
Comment by barfly — September 29, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
I hope yer right. I’d sure love to see it, but after the last couple of yers, I’m gittin’ pretty pessimistic.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pm#31. If our invasion of Iraq is inspiring terrorists, wouldn’t our invasion of Afganistan (that I have seen many here support) also do the same thing?
For the record, do the progressives here support the mission in Afganistan, or not?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 29, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Well, if Dubya and his cohorts had bothered to CONTINUE the MISSION in Afghanistan, we wouldn’t have had an invasion of Iraq. So, your first point is a bit absurd. The Taliban (who’d been hosting Osama and his al-Qaeda cabal) had managed to form a government in Kabul, but were still busy (after nearly 5 years) trying to consolidate their control over the whole of the country (they had the *sympathy* of a number of the tribal leaders in most of the country, but not the full support–especially in western and northern areas, as well as poppy-growing areas). Would jihadists have been recruited to fight the NATO forces (and you should remember that there ARE a number of other countries which have troops and military advisors still in Afghanistan)? Possibly, but not necessarily. Afghanistan is NOT a major focal point to Muslims around the world (the only reason for the original Mujahedeen forming in the 1980s was due to the Marxist–and necessarily, anti-Islamic–stance of the government of Najibullah; under the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, a number of modernizations, especially with regards to women’s rights, were expanded and the conservative tribal leaders outside of Kabul and the major cities opposed these “anti-Islamic” modernizations). If you’ll care to remember, the original funding for the Mujahedeen came as a response to the Soviet Union’s “invasion” of Afghanistan (this was also widely seen by the Muslim world in general as another “imperialist” move intended to weaken Islam; had the US directly invaded Afghanistan, even to fight the Najibullah gov’t, the Muslim world would’ve reacted the same way–and given the way the “Great Satan” was already perceived by the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East and South Asia, our chances of success would’ve been even less than the Soviet Union’s).
As for progressives choosing to support the mission in Afghanistan, well, if the Bushie Cabal in charge isn’t too concerned about it (and we don’t even have 1/5 the number of troops in Afghanistan that we do in Iraq), then the progressive community shouldn’t be expected to show any greater support.
#32. Are the body bags coming from Afganistan somehow more acceptable than the body bags coming from Iraq?
Well, since we don’t see the body bags coming from EITHER place, I don’t suppose they’re very acceptable to the Bushies. (From the way you phrased your question, I’d guess that you don’t think the “body bags coming from Afghanistan” are even equal to those “coming from Iraq.”)
Is our presense in Afganistan somehow less offensive to Islamic jihadists than our presense in Iraq?
Well, given the history of our involvement in Afghanistan, I’d say “yes”. We didn’t overthrow a POPULAR Muslim government in Afghanistan (although, we did support an equally unpopular group in deposing the Taliban; the Taliban’s sole measure of popularity came from their being from the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan–the Northern Alliance, whom we allowed to take credit for deposing the Taliban, were from smaller ethnic groups which didn’t even necessarily like each other). It is worth noting, too, that the Taliban was alleged to have offered up bin Laden and his top al-Qaeda cohorts before the US started its attacks in October 2001 but wanted a guarantee that the Taliban wouldn’t have appeared to have done so, but the US refused to provide that guarantee.
Is 9/11, seen as a criminal Bush administration plot used to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq; somehow sound justification for our actions in Afganistan?
Well, since that theory presupposes that the Bush administration needed a “fall guy”, in this case bin Laden, almost any country would’ve sufficed. Iraq would have been nice, but Saddam wouldn’t cooperate by allowing bin Laden a safe harbor in his country. (For some strange reason, Saddam didn’t approve of radical Islamist terrorist groups; he was a major supporter of terrorist organizations, but there is no hard evidence that he ever supported any Islamist group.) Since bin Laden happened to be in Afghanistan, under the “protection” of that country’s Taliban leaders, that was the country that had to be attacked. (And, please note my previous point about the Taliban’s alleged offer to turn over bin Laden. If that offer was real and the 9/11 Bush-conspiracy plot was real, then it makes sense why the US refused the offer. With bin Laden in custody, the plotters would’ve had to reformulate the rationale for invading Iraq.)
If our withdrawl from Iraq will so surely quell jihadist anger; wouldn’t it seem just as prudent to withdraw from Afganistan?
A doesn’t always lead to B. The national media have swallowed a Big Lie in the equating the Afghanistan resistance fighters with “jihadists”. They’re not. While the Afghanistan resistance are Islamists, they’re NOT jihadists (except by choice of name). They’re NOT simply fighting “infidels” to preserve and defend their FAITH; they’re fighting to CONTROL A COUNTRY. In other words, it’s a civil war–an extension of the same conflict that’s been going on since 1978. This time, we’re largely seeing a reprise of the post-Soviet withdrawal fight which led to the 1995 establishment of the Taliban control of the country. What most neocons tend to forget is that the Taliban were constantly fighting their own groups of insurgents from 1995 until their toppling in 2001; the only difference was that (with the exception of the Buddha statues incident and Clinton’s attempt to eliminate bin Laden at the height of the conservative-led “Monicagate” incident), the Western media didn’t really give a rat’s rear end. Even now, the US media largely doesn’t REPORT what’s going on in Afghanistan; they merely PARROT what the Bushies feed them.
So, if you support the withdrawl from Afganistan (in essence, isolationism in terms of addressing jihadism), please tell your representatives in congress and those running for president. Because, I don’t know of many that support withdrawl from Afganistan.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 29, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Well, there’s a big difference that you’ve obviously forgotten: Our commitment in Afghanistan is only 12-18 thousand troops, with nearly that many OTHER allied countries’ troops helping out. Our “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq, however, is almost exclusively made up of American troops. IF we could convince other countries that Iraq had been (or is) harboring bin Laden, we might could make a serious reduction in OUR troops in Iraq. The reality, however, is that the post-9/11 Coalition that attacked Afghanistan has remained largely intact and holding up the efforts of helping to reestablish a strong central government in that country; of course, until the President of Afghanistan is recognized as the Leader of All of Afghanistan and not just the Leader of Kabul and suburbs, the foreign forces will maintain their presence.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmJust waiting to get your hands on those virgins, I’ll bet!!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Pssst… a joke is only “funny”, if there’s an element of “truth” to it. In some way, it must make “sense”, like when I ask you, “Howza Neuticlesâ„¢ doin?”, ’cause, clearly yer a b*ll-less blowhard. ‘Splains why ya got such a squeaky, hig-pitched voice.
“Conversion to Islam”??? WTF??? This is so silly, I’m not sure how to reply. Knock yerself out. It’s gotta be some sorta “personal joke” only you get… no one else does…
September 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmJust waiting to get your hands on those virgins, I’ll bet!!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Yep… that’s why I stand back and let ya have yer way w/ the livestock…
Indeed, once yer done, there’s won’t be any virgin wool in these yar parts!!!
September 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmLet me rub your stupidity in yer face one more time… this one will be a “Li’l Footie Komedy Klassic”!!!!
However, you folks feel free side with our enemies if you feel the need to.
Otherwise, there appears to be no issue here.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
God, yer a stone MORON from Hell. Such a devilishly clever plot by Al Kaidi!!! Announce the death of a top commander a full YR ahead of time, so’s when the Infidel Americans kills him, it’ll make them American Invaders look bad. Damn! Yer too quick fer us, Li’l Footie!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pm“ROS! How’s the conversion to Islam coming along? ”
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Don’t piss him off.
Perhaps he knows where you can score some dirt-cheap rugs.
Your urine-stained shag smells like a kennel.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmIt would appear that both Al Qaeda and the U.S. Military agree on one thing: Abu Usama al-Tunisis is dead.
Personally, I will take the word of the U.S. Military over the word of our sworn terrorist enemies. However, you folks feel free side with our enemies if you feel the need to.
Otherwise, there appears to be no issue here.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Well, other than the military’s decision to spectacularly announce a death that apparently happened a year or so ago as if it just happened. That, Mr Sasquatch, verges on misinformation–something that should be anathema to a free society. How are we to know whether the military’s statements are timely and, more importantly, factual if the military itself waits to make the announcement?
September 30th, 2007 at 2:37 amComment by barfly — September 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pmâ€
I’ve also been suggesting RoS get some new carpet…the odor is rather strong….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
That’s the problem w/ lettin’ ya in, Li’l Footie… ya leave permanent stains wherever ya go!
September 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am