Where would they be and what would they be doing?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

[TexasTiger 13,010]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists well before they arrived in Iraq. They were recruited and trained else where then transported by Al Qaeda to Iraq. Some of them probably have been Al Qaeda for years.

One thing is for sure, they are dead Al Qaeda terrorists now.

[TexasTiger 13,010]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists well before they arrived in Iraq. They were recruited and trained else where then transported by Al Qaeda to Iraq. Some of them probably have been Al Qaeda for years.

One thing is for sure, they are dead Al Qaeda terrorists now.

I think this logic is circular:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006; Page A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

[Tigermike 3,053]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists well before they arrived in Iraq. They were recruited and trained else where then transported by Al Qaeda to Iraq. Some of them probably have been Al Qaeda for years.

One thing is for sure, they are dead Al Qaeda terrorists now.

I think this logic is circular:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006; Page A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

You are right Tex, they were not mad at us until we went to Iraq were they?

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Do you think he made this statement because of his heart felt sadness over these deaths?

[TexasTiger 13,010]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists well before they arrived in Iraq. They were recruited and trained else where then transported by Al Qaeda to Iraq. Some of them probably have been Al Qaeda for years.

One thing is for sure, they are dead Al Qaeda terrorists now.

I think this logic is circular:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006; Page A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

You are right Tex, they were not mad at us until we went to Iraq were they?

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Do you think he made this statement because of his heart felt sadness over these deaths?

It's not my info. It was produced by this administration which means you should accept it without questioning.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists well before they arrived in Iraq. They were recruited and trained else where then transported by Al Qaeda to Iraq. Some of them probably have been Al Qaeda for years.

One thing is for sure, they are dead Al Qaeda terrorists now.

I think this logic is circular:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006; Page A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

You are right Tex, they were not mad at us until we went to Iraq were they?

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Do you think he made this statement because of his heart felt sadness over these deaths?

It's not my info. It was produced by this administration which means you should accept it without questioning.

I accept the fact that this administration was correct in going into Iraq, no matter what reasons were given. In fact they were implementing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which was signed by Bill Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act made Saddam the one dictator in the world that Washington intended to topple. I believe that President Clinton was right to make that official U.S. policy, just as President Bush was right to implement that Clinton policy five years later.

Was President Clinton wrong to sign that act?

[TexasTiger 13,010]

Last week the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said in an audiotape posted on the Internet that more than 4,000 al Qaeda terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of having invaded Iraq in 2003, whatever you may think of the current strategy in Iraq (I believe it requires serious revision), ask yourself this: If these al-Qaeda terrorists had not been killed in Iraq, where would they be today and what would they be doing?

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_271102007.html

When did they become Al Qaeda terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists well before they arrived in Iraq. They were recruited and trained else where then transported by Al Qaeda to Iraq. Some of them probably have been Al Qaeda for years.

One thing is for sure, they are dead Al Qaeda terrorists now.

I think this logic is circular:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006; Page A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

You are right Tex, they were not mad at us until we went to Iraq were they?

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as commander of the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq. The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Do you think he made this statement because of his heart felt sadness over these deaths?

It's not my info. It was produced by this administration which means you should accept it without questioning.

I accept the fact that this administration was correct in going into Iraq, no matter what reasons were given. In fact they were implementing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which was signed by Bill Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act made Saddam the one dictator in the world that Washington intended to topple. I believe that President Clinton was right to make that official U.S. policy, just as President Bush was right to implement that Clinton policy five years later.

Was President Clinton wrong to sign that act?

I just read it, and don't have any problems with it. I don't think it is accurate to say that is what Bush implemented, however.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

BTW, if Clinton had done what Bush did, I would have thought that he had lost his mind, and Republicans would have opposed it and said he was wagging the dog.

BTW, under Clinton, the Kurds had already established themselves as an autonomous region in the northern no-fly zone.

[Tigermike 3,053]

I just read it, and don't have any problems with it. I don't think it is accurate to say that is what Bush implemented, however.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

BTW, if Clinton had done what Bush did, I would have thought that he had lost his mind, and Republicans would have opposed it and said he was wagging the dog.

BTW, under Clinton, the Kurds had already established themselves as an autonomous region in the northern no-fly zone.

Did President Clinton sign the act?

Was it finally implemented by President Bush?

That's pretty accurate I would say. It may be a stretch, but it is accurate.

President Clinton intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia — not because there were Weapons of Mass Destruction there, but for humanitarian reasons. That was the right principle then, and it remains the right principle. But the humanitarian case for intervention was far more compelling in Iraq than in the Balkans.

That's were President Bush messed up, they should have told you all it was for humanitarian reasons.

[CCTAU 3,343]

BTW, if Clinton had done what Bush did, I would have thought that he had lost his mind, and Republicans would have opposed it and said he was wagging the dog.

You are so wrong. I would have said, "Finally, he shows some balls to somebody other than an intern."

We were percieved as a NON-FREAKING-THREAT under clintax. As an American, I like the fact that other countries now respect the fact that at any time they decide to support terrorism, they could be next. It is that fine line between fear and respect that keeps the rogue dictators in line. Clintax did not walk that line.

If he had, I would have had no choice but to respect him. But alas, we will never know.