Draginol Draginol

Al Qaeda's not playing a game, Islamo Fascism is real

Al Qaeda's not playing a game, Islamo Fascism is real

There are real monsters out there

The political season brings out the worst in both sides. Too many people treat real world politics as a game. Not as a computer game, but a game of intellectual exercise. What they forget is that there are monsters out there. And once in a great while, a monster gets loose.

In the 20th century, Hitler and his ilk were allowed to run amok across Europe and besides the 30 million or so who died in actual in the war, another 12 million were executed simply because they weren't the correct race or creed. In Rwanda, nearly a million people were slaughtered for not being of the right tribe. That was only a few years ago.

You would think given these examples and others that people would recognize the obvious - there are monsters out there, and once in awhile, a monster gets a hold of the means to do great harm. Al Qaeda is one such monster. But you wouldn't know that based on some of the things you hear. The bombing in Spain seems to have woken up some people in Europe finally. Which is ironic because what happened in Spain was trivial compared to 9/11.

Luckily, adults are in charge. The kids can go hang out on-line or protest somewhere but the adults are the ones making the real decisions. And for them, they understand what Al Qaeda and its ilk really is. So let me share with you what the goal of Bin Laden is: The complete and total transformation of all the world to Islam. Those who are willing to be subjugated to their laws (Islam's not just a religion, it's a form of government) will be spared. Those who resist will be killed. It's that simple. The United States was attacked because it represents the largest obstacle to that goal.

Some people will say "Well, the US had that base in Saudi Arabia and if we hadn't had that, maybe he wouldn't have attacked." And why were we in Saudi Arabia? Because we were asked to by the government of Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Iraq had recently invaded Kuwait and wanted US presence in the area "just in case". We weren't there as part of some sort of imperialistic crusade. We were there to help protect others. Just like we did in Korea (and South Korea was a rural society in 1949, so don't delude yourself into thinking that was about some natural resource). And it's irrelevant anyway. Sooner or later we would have been targeted. Lucky they had to strike sooner, before they had nuclear weapons, rather than later so that we can begin actively resisting them now.

Al Qaeda makes it clear that it will do anything, and I mean anything to bring about its goals. It will kill innocents wholesale.  We should take them very seriously. Seriously enough to consider how 9/11 might have been with chemical or biological or nuclear weapons. And then perhaps the kids who treat this all as some far off intellectual game might come to understand maybe why Saddam had to be removed from power rather than fixating on whether he had actual stockpiles on hand at the end.

I wasn't willing to gamble the life of my wife and children to placate some college student or some European intellectual in Belgium. I know, and continue to know, that Al Qaeda will use whatever it has to murder people in large numbers to reach its publicly stated goals. And if Iraq didn't have WMD on hand, I don't care, because I do know what his intent was and what it was in the long term. I have always known that which is why I supported the war regardless of whether stockpiles were found. I understood and continue to understand that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

But not everyone understands because to them, it's still just a game. But it's not a game to Al Qaeda. To them, it's serious. Deadly serious.

Consider Bin Laden's own statement to the American people:

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions....

call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest...

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...

You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against...

The full text can be found here.

The first thing Al Qaeda wants is the full conversion to Islam. He makes that clear. This isn't US propaganda. This isn't George Bush trying to scare you. This is what Al Qaeda specifically wants. This is what all the killing has been about. 

You can tell it's a game to some people because the same people who argue against US resistance to Al Qaeda are the people who would suffer the most under the rule of Islam.  The same people who can jump from one discussion supporting gay marriage or telling everyone that was unhappy about Janet Jackson's breast exposure should "get a life" are the ones who will then go on and say that he has a lot of good points.  Huh? They'll post how capital punishment is a "human rights violation" while pretending to understand that to be gay under Islam is to be executed? That usury (that's borrowing with interest) would be banned? You have a mortgage? A car payment? A credit card bill? Forget it.  In Iran, for instance, Janet Jackson would have been executed by the government, if she were lucky. Stoned to death if she were not. But some people will put Al Qaeda and the US on morally equal grounds? Clearly, these are unserious people arguing about serious things.

And don't forget that paranoid Jew hating thrown in there, just to make sure that there's no mistake about the would-be Fuhrer's intentions are.

But some people see all this is just another playing card in their game of philosophical objection to the United States or its leaders. So soft and so naive that they write from their places of luxury as if there really are no monsters out there. To them, George Bush is "the monster" even though they have no understanding of what real monsters would do to them.  They think it's all part of some quest for oil or <insert natural resource X here>. Or imperialism or whatever. It's not. It's about our way of life. Our existence outrages them.

These people want to eliminate our way of life. They find our way of life appalling.  They find it immoral and dishonorable. And they plan to make us change it either by voluntarily converting ourselves to their way or by killing every man, woman, or child that resists or may resist them. We're not just fighting some ideology or some far away concept. We're fighting for our lives.

You can't negotiate with a side whose primary demand is that you cease to exist. You can't ignore people who are working towards gaining the means to kill increasing numbers of people. You can't wait until it's a mushroom cloud over your city to act. Al Qaeda and its ilk were not created by the CIA or some American group as some smug yet ignorant people seem to think. I say smug because it demonstrates an arrogance -- that other peoples are incapable of putting together such a movement and such an organization on their own. They believe in what they're doing. They believe they're doing God's work and the only way they'll be stopped is if someone stops them.

Thankfully, the adults are in charge. Regardless of who wins in November, don't kid yourself that the US will change its course. Both candidates, luckily, know that there are monsters out there that have to be dealt with.

34,972 views 126 replies
Reply #51 Top
Brad, usually you make solid arguments that I can respect even if I don't agree with them, but I'm sad to say that's not the case this time. First of all, simply because I disagree with the war on Iraq doesn't make me some child that needs a responsible adult in charge. Your condescending tone in this article eliminates any points that you were trying to make. My opposition to the war does not make me a supporter of bin Laden--simply it means that I didn't think that going into Iraq would stop al Qaeda, and I'm sad to say that I'm right. We eliminated our "enemy" in the Middle East, but al Qaeda attacked again...but, if I read you correctly, that's ok, because they attacked Bali and Madrid, and that's not US so it's fine. I can not even begin to tell you how much that logic disgusts me--I can barely stomach the fact that you called the murder of 200+ people in Madrid "trivial."

Terrorism can not be fought by traditional methods. Declaring a conventional war will do nothing to stop the terrorist. Dealing with terrorists involves creative thinking on the part of the government--keeping on top of intelligence, being one-step ahead of them, doing everything in your power to make sure they don't attack again. But you can't fight a conventional war against an invisible enemy. It just doesn't work.
Reply #52 Top
Difference between Public Law and House Resolution?

I didn't know you were referring to Brad's comments. I see now. I think you're making a jump from "involved" to "linked" or back again, but my sematics alert went off and I don't really care about niggling details. Saddam was part of the rogue state / terrorist sponsor state picture (as many others are) and as I read Brad's comments, he's saying that Iraq had connections to Iraq within that context. We know Saddam gave money to suicide bomber's families in Israel - that's enough for me to make him a terrorist, if we're going to skip all the other (non-Al Qaida related) reasons to go to war. There's also lots of circumstatial evidence to Al Qaida or Al Qaida related support (although I seem to have lost some of my links on this).

"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

Clinton was also no stranger to the "link":

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

And as for pre-judging you (and in response to psychx): It's very difficult and very scary to try and fight for your life when you're surrounded by people who not only don't see the threat, but don't want you to be able to protect yourself from it. It's like a friend of mine said, if you're black in America, it's impossible to be a success without seeing white people, but the inverse isn't true at all. I think conservatives (like myself) feel surrounded by people who either don't care or are openly hostile to our pleas of warning. It's tough to get attacked every day for saying anything pro-Bush or pro-war (and I'm in BERKELEY) without getting at least a little sensitive and reactive.
Reply #53 Top
I think conservatives (like myself) feel surrounded by people who either don't care or are openly hostile
End of quote


and you don't think the same hold true for those of us who are liberal--please, read the forums around here...

I'm not making any jump at all...Brad said "Bush never said Iraq was involved 9/11, BulbousHead" and I responded with the quote from PL 107-243 that said "Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;" That quote say that the US can use force against Iraq because the US can use force against nations that "aided the terrorist attacks." I don't think that is a jump at all.


Difference between Public Law and House Resolution?
End of quote

One has actually been signed by the President and thus shows that he supported it...I haven't read the House Resolution, so I don't know if the two are identical...but there is a possibility that they are not. The Public Law has the President's seal of approval.

Reply #54 Top
shades, nothing you quoted from Bush said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Brad said that Bush never linked Saddam/Iraq to 9/11. He didn't say that Saddam was never linked to Al Quida. Also, a lot of what you quoted helps Brad's point. It said that the president and congress were determined to go after all terrorists and terrorist organizations INCLUDING those responsible for 9/11 not JUST those responsible for 9/11. Saddam is a terrorist. Anyone dispute that? Saddam would take any opportunity to strike at the US. Anyone dispute that? Did people really want us to wait until chemical weapons or bombs were on our doorstep again? I say, you openly hate us and sympathize with those that kill our innocent people, we preemptively put a stop to your chances of doing more of the same.
Reply #55 Top
"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist."


That was found to be a fake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/

"A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents."
Reply #56 Top
Shades writes: The fact was very relevant--Brad was arguing that the current Administration never linked Iraq to al Qaeda--the only way to refute that is with facts (which was provided in PL 107-243).

Perhaps you should read what I write. I never said that the administration didn't like Iraq and Al Qaeda. I said the administration didn't link Saddam to 9/11. And yes, I do basically have little respect for those who are against the war in terror. My condescending attitude towards the appeasement faction of the world is not accidental. I have no respect for people who would gamble with the lives of my family to satisfy their own philosophical disagreements with the US government.

And as much as I feel sorry for the Spanish people, and I do, they only got a mild taste of what 9/11 was like.

I have total disdain for the people who are more interested in making witty retorts and trying to sound clever than wanting to actually deal with the real world problems. When people like you Shades can't even be bothered to make the distinction between Saddam having links to Al Qaeda and Saddam being involved with 9/11, why should I bother to be overly concerned whether you think my writing is fair or not?
Reply #57 Top
Saddam is a terrorist. Anyone dispute that?


Yes. Whether you liked him or not, Saddam was a legitimate government.


Did people really want us to wait until chemical weapons or bombs were on our doorstep again?


A strange metaphor. If someone left them on our doorstep, then wouldn't we have them safe and sound?


I say, you openly hate us and sympathize with those that kill our innocent people, we preemptively put a stop to your chances of doing more of the same.


So hating the United States is enough to justify an invasion now. Interesting.
Reply #58 Top
And as much as I feel sorry for the Spanish people, and I do, they only got a mild taste of what 9/11 was like.


So you feel sorry for them, but not really that much, because the ratio of dead Spanish to dead Americans is still pretty low. I see.


When people like you Shades can't even be bothered to make the distinction between Saddam having links to Al Qaeda and Saddam being involved with 9/11, why should I bother to be overly concerned whether you think my writing is fair or not?


So you're still "stumped" as to how the American people got the idea that Saddam had something to do with September 11?
Reply #59 Top
well, i don't live in the u.s.... sure glad billions of dollars of my tax money aren't feeding the military industrial complex to feed this whole situation.
note that the number of americans killed by terrorism ever is still below the number of americans killed by work related accidents in one year (less than 5,500). the amount of money spent on the iraq war could provide health care for all americans without health care insurance for a decade.

"the war on terror"..." the war on drugs"..."the cold war"... the perpetual war!
Reply #60 Top
"the war on terror"..." the war on drugs"..."the cold war"... the perpetual war!


War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.
Reply #61 Top
Shades, as I said, you can live easily without getting shouted down for your beliefs. Almost all the mainstream websites, TV stations, magazines and newspapers are on your page. By that I mean you will easily hear "there were no WMDs" and "Bush lied" and "arrogant USA" in all of those media outlets over and over.

For instance, I would be happy to sit down in front of the TV and watch any channel but Fox (and maybe even Fox) abd pay you ten dollars for every time we heard "Bush said we could not wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat", if you give me a quarter for every time we see someone say "Bush told us we were going to war because Iraq was an imminent threat"

The endless phrases "rush to war" and "Iraq occupation" and "no WMDs" are like an endless drone from the media that I cannot escape from. You can. You think this -internet forum- is bad? This is nothing.

Try imagining a world where you pass a newsstand and see headlines like "2,000 Terrorists Dead!" or "Iraq Free, Libya repentant, Iran next!" or "Bush Remains Vigilant" and imagine how you'd feel.

Vincible - "found to be fake" and "probably a fabrication" mean different things.
Reply #62 Top
Try imagining a world where you pass a newsstand and see headlines like "2,000 Terrorists Dead!" or "Iraq Free, Libya repentant, Iran next!" or "Bush Remains Vigilant" and imagine how you'd feel.


Please. When the war was in full swing, the media was in love with it. What sells papers and attracts viewers more than things getting blown up?

I don't know how you can complain about the phrase "no WMDs" because so far, there are no WMDs. This is a statement of fact, not rhetoric. Many people, including myself, opposed the war because they thought it was a bad idea, but now, many people who supported the war are upset that the President's original reasoning for it seems to be a load of shit. Sure, some of us have disliked Bush all along, but some of the fence-sitters are realizing that they were duped.
Reply #63 Top
Kerry is the alternative obviously


A person is not an alternative. A plan of action is an alternative. How would you negotiate with someone who doesn't care what you say? How would you barter with someone who will strap a bomb on their body and blow themselves up so they can go to heaven and have plenty of virgins at their beck and call? I don't think you can offer them anything better, which is the crux of negotiation. Bartering or negotiating does not work on someone willing to die for what they believe in.

VES
Reply #64 Top
Bulbous, thanks for making me fully appreciate how lucky I was to be responding to someone like Shades.

*sigh* Everyone in the world -thought- he had active WMDs. There is/way no doubt he had WMDs because he had already USED them. His own government released records (remember the 12-16,000 page report they dumped on us) that showed that some of their chemical weapons were unaccounted for. I could go on and on. You don't care anyway. For you, the "fact" is that as of this moment (today) no substantial WMD have been found in Iraq. It doesn't matter to you that there used to be, or that maybe they were moved or destroyed. For you, the fact (I am not disputing your fact) that there are none right now is enough to make judgements.

Sadly, even if they had found WMDs, you would still be against the war. It would be because of cost, or because of collateral damage, or .. well, you know better than me. You just found something you can parrot over and over and feel righteous about. No WMD! No WMD!

If I bring up how many Iraqi citizens died because of US sanctions, would you care? If I linked the preliminary Kay report wherein he clearly shows Hussein's focus on acquiring WMD and reports that it was MORE DANGEROUS THAN WE THOUGHT EVEN BEFORE THE WAR, would that -fact- make it to your roster of thoughts?

No. No it wouldn't. And that's why you're an ideologue and I'm a free-thinker.
Reply #65 Top
Vincible - "found to be fake" and "probably a fabrication" mean different things.


Yes, they don't use the exact words "found to be fake." I don't know what other possible conclusion one could draw after reading that article, though.

What justification do you have for believing the claim that Atta trained in Baghdad, after the detailed refutations in there? Not only are almost all of Atta's movements at the relevant time accounted for, but the document claiming that Atta was there looks fishy in numerous ways. Even the person who published the document linking Atta to Baghdad admits he has ""no way of verifying it." He adds, "it's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens."

In short, the evidence that the claim is true is one (anonymous!) person's say-so. And there's lots and lots of evidence that the claim is false. How can you defend this?
Reply #66 Top
ves,
you just don't get it... do you?
America supports the Shaw of Iran and his murderous thugs for oil...
America supports S. Hussein and his murderous thugs for oil...
America support tyrants all over the middle east (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc)... for oil!

so these people who suffer under these tyrants and are denied functioning democracies are forced into desperate measures know who their enemies are.... they are the ignorant American public!

and Americans could have had electric vehicles and alternative forms of energy decades ago... but the most powerful organization in the world, oil, doesn't want things to change... they're pumping money out of the ground!
Reply #67 Top
It doesn't matter to you that there used to be, or that maybe they were moved or destroyed. For you, the fact (I am not disputing your fact) that there are none right now is enough to make judgements.


The war was based on the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. If the weapons are not there anymore, or were moved, or were destroyed, then there was, in fact, no imminent threat to the US.


If I linked the preliminary Kay report wherein he clearly shows Hussein's focus on acquiring WMD and reports that it was MORE DANGEROUS THAN WE THOUGHT EVEN BEFORE THE WAR, would that -fact- make it to your roster of thoughts?


In other words, your big selling point is a report by a UN inspector. So why did we rush to invade Iraq when the President cried that the UN inspections were accomplishing nothing?
Reply #68 Top
The war was not based that Iraq was an imminent threat. That is something fabricated as a strawman argument.  The war was sold on the basis that Iraq had proven time and time again that it wasn't upholding its part of the bargain from 1991 on and after September 11th we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them so he had to go.
Reply #69 Top

Whether you liked him or not, Saddam was a legitimate government.


How do you define "legitimate" government?


 

Reply #70 Top
The war was not based that Iraq was an imminent threat. That is something fabricated as a strawman argument.


after September 11th we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them


Why did we not have that luxury unless Iraq was an imminent threat?
Reply #71 Top
How do you define "legitimate" government?


A legitimate government is one that actually has power and control over the country. I didn't mean it to have anything to do with how that power was secured because that is irrelevant once it is secured.
Reply #72 Top
This argument could go on forever, here's the undeniable truth;

Saddam is gone, he no longer threatens anyone. His weapons are missing, not gone, so where are they?

Our central concern should be a peaceful democratic Iraq, a goal not shared by the Shi'ite majority.
Does anyone remember Ayetola Kohmannei ( however it's spelled ), he was the shi'ite cleric that overthrew the Shah of Iran.
You know he got his ideas in Iraq ?

The shi'ite want an Islamic clerical dictatorship ( or their leaders do ) just like the Taliban, just like Iran, just like the Wahhabi of
Saudi Arabia.

If they control the Middle East, then they control the worlds oil supply, nice way to affect converts to Islam hmm?

We are in the Middle East to secure our future, our way of life. If you don't realize that you need to start teaching your children Arabic
and figure out which direction Mecca is in.............................

God bless GW Bush, the only leader with the ( fill in the blank adjective ) to protect our future !!!!!!
Reply #73 Top
As Brad said, we had that luxury because Hussein wasn't upholding his side of the deal.
Reply #74 Top
Saddam is gone, he no longer threatens anyone.


He didn't threaten us before we deposed him, either.


If they control the Middle East, then they control the worlds oil supply, nice way to affect converts to Islam hmm?


Somehow, I don't see the world converting to Islam because they're desperate for oil.


If you don't realize that you need to start teaching your children Arabic and figure out which direction Mecca is in


Nor do I foresee the conquest of the Western world by any Islamic nation or terrorist faction.


God bless GW Bush, the only leader with the ( fill in the blank adjective ) to protect our future !!!!!!


Actually, you would need a noun. And I think that if God exists, he rarely gives his blessings to Presidents with "bring 'em on" attitudes toward war.


***

As Brad said, we had that luxury because Hussein wasn't upholding his side of the deal.


No, Brad said "we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them."
Reply #75 Top
Brad Wardell wrote: " Heck, you have people on this very site trying to argue that Reagan or at the very least the US was somehow involved in the "Creation" of Osama Bin Laden. People believe lots of things without much rational reason."

Brad, that's actually not such an outlandish opinion. Steve Coll,Pulitzer Prize-winning author and managing editor of the Washington Post, has written how US intelligence operations in Afghanistan fueled the rise of the Taliban and inadvertently made it much easier for Osama bin Laden to operate. Several administrations, including Reagan's, made of mess of things. Read all about it in Coll's book, "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001"