BS: Bin Laden's dissidents

Subject: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:28 PM

An interesting two part article:

Turning their Backs on Jihad

Cruickshank believes that, ironically enough, it was the Iraq war that delayed latent criticism of bin Laden and his concept of jihad. "What's emerging now has been simmering for a long time." The fact that American soldiers were occupying holy ground provided every major terrorist leader with a convenient justification for jihad in Iraq.

Bush's way of fighting Islamist terrorists was ill conceived and has increased instead of decreased the real danger.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

I listened to the Obama speech today. There us hope but for all the vengence we have left behind, all the parents dead, all the children scared.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:01 PM

Exactly the point I have been making; the narrow mindset of warmongering actually works against the natural backlash of Islam against its own extremists, by being just as extreme.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:21 PM

"Bush's way of fighting Islamist terrorists was ill conceived and has increased instead of decreased the real danger."

Wolfgang

You're just coming to that realization? Man. It's been five years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,oll
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:35 PM

"all the parents dead, all the children scared"

Yes, but the vast majority were killed by their own people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:36 PM

Some of us have been saying that same thing (about increasing rather than decreasing the danger) for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 11:48 AM

Interesting article that Wolfgang provided a link to. It is also so predictable that the only lines of it seized upon by those in this Forum represent the opinion of two western "experts", all the other sources and what they have to say is completely dismissed:

"Paul Cruickshank of New York University and terrorism expert Peter Bergen spent six months investigating the turmoil within al-Qaida. The two were the first to interview Noman Benotman, and they also spoke with other critics of the terror organization -- including Sheikh Salman al-Oudah. On the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Saudi went on the television channel MBS to publicly demand of bin Laden how many innocents had already been killed in the name of al-Qaida. Oudah also wanted to know how bin Laden planned to face the almighty with hundreds, even thousands, of innocent lives on his conscience.

"Al-Oudah is neither in prison nor is he suspected of being a friend of the Americans or a tool of the Saudi government," says Cruickshank. On the contrary: In 2004, the sheikh called on Iraqis to fight against the US occupiers in their country.

Cruickshank believes that, ironically enough, it was the Iraq war that delayed latent criticism of bin Laden and his concept of jihad. "What's emerging now has been simmering for a long time." The fact that American soldiers were occupying holy ground provided every major terrorist leader with a convenient justification for jihad in Iraq.

There is no doubt that al-Qaida remains an unscrupulous and dangerous terrorist organization, even if it has lost some of its influence in Iraq. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, its core countries, it is enjoying renewed support. Allied with the newly strengthened Taliban, al-Qaida is doing its part to seriously jeopardize the regimes in Islamabad and Kabul. "In the long term, however, they will face problems as a result of the ideological debate," says Peter Bergen. "They are already having trouble finding recruits in Europe today."

Take a look at the timeline folks and the order in which things came to pass, please do so openly and honestly, not just as another exercise in bashing the US or hammering GWB.

Afghanistan at the moment is at the point now where Iraq was three or four years ago. The Taleban and Al-Qaeda now rarely take on the ANA, ANPF, ISAF and US troops directly, the recent attack at Wanat is a rare exception in which the Taleban again came off decidedly second best. Their tactics now of IED's, car bombs and suicide bombers mark a significant retreat that is self-defeating. Exactly the same tactics were adopted in Iraq and the local population, fellow Muslims, who suffered the greatest casualties turned against them. That is beginning to happen in Afghanistan now and intelligence is getting better and better.

Pakistan has just gone through a change of government and they have had a number of issues to sort out that have diverted people's attention from the elephant standing in the drawing room. One seemingly innocuous piece of news the other day may have extremely important ramifications. That was the decision to have the death of Benazir Bhutto investigated by a UN Commission of Enquiry. Everybody knows who was responsible, but party politics within Pakistan will not allow any internal enquiry to stand because of bias. If the culprits are named after an Inquiry by a truly impartial recognised international body, the result has to be acknowledged. That leads us back to the elephant - A country of the standing of Pakistan internationally and more importantly within the region, armed as it is with tested nuclear weapons, cannot in all conscience; have within its boundaries large tracts of land where rule of government, law and order do not prevail. That is the nettle that the Government of Pakistan has to grasp, exactly as the Government of Great Britain had to do with Scotland in first part of the 18th century. This task also becomes easier the more progress is made in Afghanistan. The days of the Raj's old "North West Frontier" are numbered, or Pakistan is doomed, and many in the new Government fully understand that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:01 PM

Teribus,

It is you that needs to look at things honestly. Your imagination of geopolitics is not a "source" that we should be taking into account when looking at the article.

You also seem to be ignoring the mistakes made by Bush in Afghanistan, most notably underfunding the rebuilding and withdrawing the Special Forces while Al Qaeda and the Taliban were still viable fighting forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

The invasion and subsequent occupations of Iraq and the Afghani is not about "terrorism", get over that ... is all about imperialism. Complete control of the mideast.

Anyone remember Wolfowitz and "A One-Superpower World"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

PNAC.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

One should expect the populace of an occupied country to uprise and defend their homeland, community, family ... I guess when you look at it ... these insurgents, terrosists or whatever ya label them are 'patriots' in their own way.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:30 PM

You got it Jack !

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:41 PM

I don't believe that the Taliban or Al Qaeda are patriots in Afghanistan. They are the product of the Saudis using money to export the pent up anger of their own repressed people. I would have to be named Saud when THOSE chickens finally come back to roost. But they are living quite well now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

Tiy are correct Jack in regards to the Taliban .... but watch the ranks swell if the occupying forces do get aggressive and put a complete plug into the opium harvesting.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:02 PM

Maybe in that case No.6 & JtS you can explain why the general populations of Iraq and Afghanistan are not supporting these "patriots" and "freedom fighters"?

"occupied country" No.6 What around 150,000 troops in Iraq for a population of nearly 27,000,000 - hardly would have thought that that was enough.

"occupied country" No.6? 53,000 troops in Afghanistan with a population of 31,889,923.

Give you a hint No.6, the Germans "occupied" Norway in 1940, the population of Norway at that time was about 3.5 million, the Germans sent in and kept 550,000 troops in Norway - that is an occupying force.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 08:35 PM

Back in the old days of WW II regimes required manpower to occupy ... now a days in the new millennium it takes technology, and a small amount of manpower ... manpower just to make the impression to the occupied on whose the new boss.

Read about the new U.S. Embassy under construction in Bagdhad ... in reality it's not an embassy, it's a goddamned imperial palace, staggering in size .. not an embassy, it's most certainly the big mother headquaters of mideast occupation.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:25 PM

Very interesting article, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:26 AM

Damn right, "it's a goddamned imperial palace, staggering in size" No.6 but it has not been built from scratch has it? It owes its origins, scale and grandeur to its previous owner - Saddam Hussein, who I believe built 34 of them at a time when his people were supposedly starving.

Ah so technology is the panacea for occupation is it No.6? With technology you can control every aspect of civilian life to ensure that the population does your bidding. Tell me from your obviously intensive studies of occupations, how many occupiers encourage and support free local and national elections? Isn't there normally a military Governor? Last but not least, if the US is "occupying" Iraq and Afghanistan, how and why is there United Nations Security Council Mandates authorising their presence in those self same countries?

You still haven't addressed the point raised as to why the general populations of both countries were not supporting "their" supposed "patriots" and "freedom fighters".

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:11 AM

Well Terribus ... you are unaware of this new structure being built. Check out the blue linky.

U.S fortress

In regards to the general populace supporting the 'patriots' ... I'm sure if you ask, a majority of the people of these nations have grave concerns and resent the U.S. occupation. As time goes on there will be IMHO (unfortunately, but will you blame them) the new fight for freedom of their own destiny, even if we may not agree with the route they choose.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:25 AM

BTW ... it cannot be argued that this massive 'structure' is not just an embassy ... it is a fortress (period). It is not a fortress to combat 'terrorism', it is a fortress of an occupying foreign country, digging itself in for the long run. Shutting itself off (protection?) from the occupied populace.I wonder what Obama's take on this is?

Those elections are a farce .... a show in the new age of communications ... and we all know it, or at least should be aware of it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:29 AM

"I'm sure if you ask, a majority of the people of these nations have grave concerns and resent the U.S. occupation. As time goes on there will be IMHO (unfortunately, but will you blame them) the new fight for freedom of their own destiny, even if we may not agree with the route they choose."

Like you, I too am sure that if asked the people of those nations would voice their concerns and resentment, the latter to a lesser degree, that is only natural and perfectly understandable.

Now N0.6, ask those same people if they want to see those US troops gone and you will get a very different answer, they may be viewed with resentment and concern, but they are also seen as a necessary presence in the first genuine attempt by anyone in the last forty years to improve the lot of the people of both countries.

Now No.6, ask those same people if they want to see a return to the "good old days" and they will tell in no uncertain terms absolutely not.

You mistakenly speak of invasion and occupation and pull on your blinkers to ignore everything else, just to suit your own rather insular political preference. Let's take Afghanistan as an example shall we:

- Do you acknowledge that from the time of the Soviet intervention there in 1980 until November 2001 that the country has been in a state of perpetual war. Now they are fighting an insurgency with much of the country undisturbed.

- You say that the US invaded Afghanistan, when in actual fact they did not, the US aided the efforts of the Afghani Northern Alliance in their fight against the Taleban. With this assistance the Northern Alliance won and the Taleban were driven from power.

- During the rule of the Taleban in Afghanistan No.6, how many schools did they open? How many schools did they close? How many hospitals did they open? How many did they close? Were roads built or destroyed? Were the hydro-electric power plants maintained or destroyed? Were all treated equal before the law, or was the law whatever the Pashtu of the Taleban decreed it to be day by day? Elections under the Taleban regime were held when No.6, or were they ever held?

- The Taleban in power were an evil and odious regime judged by anybodies yardstick, it is without the slightest doubt that driving them from power has been the most positive thing that has happened to the people of Afghanistan since the Russian invasion.

- In assisting the people of Afghanistan the world must stand beside them for at least the next twenty, possibly thirty years, until the present generation of Afghani children have all been educated to some degree, so that they learn the benefits of peaceful co-existence so that some twat with a beard and an AK-47 cannot come down from the hills and butcher them at will on the basis of whatever they think their interpretation of the Koran tells them to do that particular day. When they do decide their own destiny, bit by bit and stage by stage, each step will be based on an electorate with a far broader based education and awareness of the world around them than ever before.

It is very long term No.6, but definitely worth the effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 11:13 AM

We have been told that the US will leave Iraq if the government of Iraq requests it. The government of Iraq has said that it wants the US to remove its presence from Iraq. I'm sure that means we will be pulling out of Iraq any day now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM

HHave they CarolC? Now when did they do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:48 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/ts_nm/iraq_dc_8


" BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.

The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.

Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf...

..."There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said, adding the capability of Iraq's 500,000-strong security forces had greatly improved...

...In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law...

... "Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview.

Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad.

But Attiya said this would not work in Iraq.

"The immunity that renders U.S. troops completely outside of Iraqi jurisdiction and law, I do not think Iraq's parliament will agree on this," he said."

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:17 AM

You take that CarolC as them (The Iraqi Government) saying, "The government of Iraq has said that it wants the US to remove its presence from Iraq."

Strange, I thought that the very first paragraph said:

"Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."

Which to me reads as though the Iraqi Government is quite willing to sign any bi-lateral security agreement with the US as long as it includes wording to the effect that if we need your troops here at sometime in the future there will be some automatic mechanism within that agreement for them to leave once they are no longer required.

Which is a different kettle of fish entirely to how CarolC reads it.

Of course Iraq is waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq." - because that will mean that all is well and that country is at peace, anybody who wouldn't wait impatiently for that to happen would have to be an idiot - doesn't mean that they want them out now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:20 AM

I don't see any wording in that quote from the Iraqis that says anything at all about what they want from the US in the future except to remove the US forces (and other non-Iraqi forces) from Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:40 AM

Here's some more background. Because the UN mandate for the foreign forces to be in Iraq expires at the end of this year, there has to be some kind of security agreement in place in order for these forces to remain and operate in Iraq beyond the end of 2008. Without such an agreement, they would have to leave. The security agreement hasn't got anything to do with Iraq wanting foreign forces to return to Iraq at some point in the future. al-Maliki is proposing a short term agreement in the form of a "memorandum of understanding" because he is unlikely to be able to push a formal security agreement through parliament. The Iraqi parliament feels that a formal security agreement would ensure a long term foreign military presence in Iraq, and would be a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. al-Maliki has said that any short term agreement must include a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/07/iraq/main4235634.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 04:32 AM

CarolC says: "I don't see any wording in that quote from the Iraqis that says anything at all about what they want from the US in the future except to remove the US forces (and other non-Iraqi forces) from Iraq."

Which is strange because it is contained within the second paragraph of the BAGHDAD (Reuters) article she quoted:

"The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year."

Isn't there something in there about, "..a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year." Isn't 2009 and onward in the future CarolC?

The current United Nations Security Council Mandate was requested by the Iraqi Government "For One Last Time" on 18th December, 2007 and was granted and passed within the time frame of 35 minutes:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm

That applies to all MNF troops not specifically US troops. However looking to the future, particularly a future with a nuclear armed Iran, there is nothing wrong, or unusual, in the Government of Iraq entering into as many bi-lateral defence and security agreements as they see fit in order to deter any possible aggressor, in fact they would be absolute mugs if they didn't.

From all this chatter I get the distinct impression that the Iraqi Government is just hedging their bets, they know that conditions within Iraq are improving and that come next December they will not be able to convince the UN Security Council that the MNF presence is justified, but at the same time they do not want the US element to leave as their (the Iraqi) security forces are not yet fully up to speed and they do not have any meaningful Air or Naval Forces. That is what they are talking about CarolC not the MNF troops in Iraq at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:31 AM

I repeat my last post, since it seems to have been missed somehow...

Here's some more background. Because the UN mandate for the foreign forces to be in Iraq expires at the end of this year, there has to be some kind of security agreement in place in order for these forces to remain and operate in Iraq beyond the end of 2008. Without such an agreement, they would have to leave. The security agreement hasn't got anything to do with Iraq wanting foreign forces to return to Iraq at some point in the future. al-Maliki is proposing a short term agreement in the form of a "memorandum of understanding" because he is unlikely to be able to push a formal security agreement through parliament. The Iraqi parliament feels that a formal security agreement would ensure a long term foreign military presence in Iraq, and would be a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. al-Maliki has said that any short term agreement must include a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/07/iraq/main4235634.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:24 AM

Oh CarolC, was that to repeat your post of 18 Jul 08 - 01:40 AM which began:

"Here's some more background. Because the UN mandate for the foreign forces to be in Iraq expires at the end of this year, there has to be some kind of security agreement in place in order for these forces to remain and operate in Iraq beyond the end of 2008."

And ended:

"http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/07/iraq/main4235634.shtml"

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 01:13 PM

Yes, that's the one. The security agreement being negotiated is not about future deployments of foreign troops in Iraq. It addresses what to do about the foreign military presence that is in Iraq at the present time, after the UN mandate expires.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: pdq
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 01:35 PM

"...the UN mandate for the foreign forces to be in Iraq expires at the end of this year"

Just having someone admit that such a mandate exists is a victory of sorts.

Yes, we are there by request and under authority of a UN mandate. We are removing troups as quickly as possible, the limiting factor is whether the elected government will be able to porvide security for itself and its citizens.

If they said "leave tomorrow" we would do so, but they know it's too early to risk being overthrown by various anti-democratic groups.

We will probably have at least one major military base in Iraq far into the future. Such bases can operate as autonomous entities and have little effect on the lives of the people of Iraq. We will also have civilian contractors building roads and buildings. We will probably be the major player in oil production from now on, since Russia and China are both getting the reputation for changing deals when it suits their purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM

If they said they wanted us out on January 1, we would be obligated to leave, regardless of what the security situation was there at the time.

If we didn't leave, nobody in these discussions would be able to use the excuse that we are there because they want us there. In such a situation, the imperialistic nature of our real reasons for being there would no longer have any cover and would be out in the open. The Bush administration wants us to have a permanent military presence in Iraq. They really don't give a crap about other countries' sovereignty.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:37 PM

Right on Carol!

So true.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: pdq
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:50 PM

"If they said they wanted us out on January 1, we would be obligated to leave..."

Of course we would leave. Can someone actually accuse people of bad faith in an event that is six months in the future? I hope not.

Another point. The United States is working in Iraq. Hearing people say that it is Bush or the Bush administration gets tedious after six or seven years. The Senate Democrats voted unanimously for the War on Terrorism as well as the authorization for the eviction of Saddam's government in March of 2003.

Last point. Whether someone else "gives a crap" about something is impossible for someone else to know. Kinda like "intent".

Oh, one last last point: the US has no empire and never has. We help troubled countries establish a reasonably competent government and turn them loose. See Cuba, the Phillipines and dozens of others if someone is truly interested in historical fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:13 PM

A nice (warm fuzzy) take on what the US does around the world. I think the majority of the world's population would probably disagree with that perspective (at this point in time).

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:26 PM

Why CarolC can you give us evidence that would lead us to believe that once asked to leave they wouldn't?

After all it was you lot that swore that the US was going to:
- Maintain permanent military bases in Iraq
- "Steal" Iraq's oil (after all that is what it was all about - LOL rolling about the floor in hysterics)

The only problem is that if the Iraqi Government really want the US/MNF Troops out of Iraq (Which I sincerely hope that they do) then troop withdrawal should be starting about now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:28 PM

...watch the ranks swell if the occupying forces do get aggressive and put a complete plug into the opium harvesting.

The Taliban were actually pretty effective in repressing opium production when they were in power. The invasion and occupation effectively gave it the green light.

Rather analogous to the way the mafia in Italy benefitted by the overthrow of Mussolini, and that the crushing of Saddam led to a horrifying increase in sectarian violence, and the virtual annihilation of the ancient Christian minority in Iraq.

When dictatorships are overthrown, especially by foreign invaders, that can have some paradoxical consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:32 PM

Teribus,

So far, they've built the bases, whether they are permanent or not depends only upon how long we stay.

We've also taken the most lucrative development contracts from Russia and france and put them in US and British hands.

Laugh once the bases are empty and the contracts are awarded by open bid.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 08:00 PM

I'm not saying they won't go. But they have been working overtime trying to get the Iraqi government to sign a security agreement that would let them stay.

Whether or not they will leave when they are required to or when asked to remains to be seen. What's obvious is that the Bush administration and McCain want the US to have a permanent presence in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:27 PM

"We've also taken the most lucrative development contracts from Russia and france and put them in US and British hands." - Jack the Sailor

Name them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:34 PM

"The Taliban were actually pretty effective in repressing opium production when they were in power." MGOH

Really Kevin?? What the hell do you think financed them when they were in power??

My son was part of the crowd who found the 237 tons of Hash and Heroin just outside Kandahar, owned by the Taleban, it was worth over US$400 million. they placed Thermite packs amongst it and called in an air strike to destroy it all, couldn't just burn it, with the wind direction as it was the whole of the city would have been high for days.

Taleban are only against opium production when it bloody well suits them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:28 AM

Not the only ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:48 AM

Funny you mentioned the destruction of the opium fields Terribus ... a friend of mine's younger brother is a young infantry captain in the Canadian forces who has served 2 tours in the Afghani ... he mentioned the fact he hated destroying the farmer's opium fields (at the request of the afghani gov't) ... the times that they did dstroy the 'crops' by the next day the local farmers most certainly be on the opposing side trying to kill them ... why, because they had destroyed their only viable form of income.

This individual is a career officer in the Canadian forces and proud of it ... but he vowed he would never, under no circumstances (at the point of ending his career) go on another tour over there.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:16 AM

It'd be much easier and probably much cheaper in the long run, to just buy the crop. Go down a lot better with the locals too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bin Laden's dissidents
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM

" because they had destroyed their only viable form of income." - Number 6

Funny that, because the word I get from my son is that the farmers would actually prefer to grow anything else as they make more money from it. The Taleban or the local Warlord tells the farmer to grow opium poppy under threat of death to the farmer and/or his family. The farmer cannot sell his crop because it is already "owned" by the Taleban or local Warlord, who pay the farmer a pittance for cultivating it. In other parts of Afghanistan they have already turned away from opium poppy as a crop and are growing other things - those farmers and their families are a damn sight better off.