AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Jihadist Political posturing?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243059,00.html

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar an Afghan warlord says he helped UBL and Zawahiri escape Tora Bora during the famous battle. He says however he has no links to Al Qaeda. He says he has been offered negotiations and would only accept if we leave. I have two theories on this and believe one of them is true.

First theory is he is looking to take over the jihadists to his side. He wants to gain their allegiance by claiming to have saved UBL. He probably senses UBL and Zawahiri may be out of the equation soon and is positioning himself to take the lead. He may even drop the dime on them to accomplish this.

Second theory is the guy wants to negotiate for preservation of himself and whatever militant movement he has. He may be offering to hand over UBL and Zawahiri if we don't destroy them. His saying he has no ties to Al Qaeda may be to soften the deal. I know some of this is contradictory but that's because this jerk is sending mixed signals.

He may be lying just to save his butt so we have to consider the source. I say we make the deal, pick up UBL and Zawahiri and then Mr. Hekmatyar can go sleep with the fishes. If they have any fish in Afghanistan. If not we can send him on a permanent vacation with 72 hairy virgins.
Independents4Bush Wrote:If not we can send him on a permanent vacation with 72 hairy virgins.

Quote:reminds me of this cartoon.

[Image: cb0108aj.jpg]
Third option. He may believe that the left in the USA and Europe will eventually cause the West to withdraw and UBL/Zawahiri may have a chance in the furure to retake Afghanistan along with the Taliban. By telling UBL and Zawahiri that he helped rescue them from Tora Bora may be his way of reminding them they owe him a favor. Jockying for return favors is a very Islamic thing. Why make the comments about not being tied to Al-Qaeda? If he isn't then surely UBL knows that already. Maybe he is fishing to be let in?
Well you understand the culture better. However I know 130 of the islamo nazis were taken out there. Trust me when I say we're not leaving until we win in Iraq. In Afghanistan we definately won't leave and we are kicking the enemy's butt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16571920/
Independents4Bush Wrote:Well you understand the culture better. However I know 130 of the islamo nazis were taken out there. Trust me when I say we're not leaving until we win in Iraq. In Afghanistan we definately won't leave and we are kicking the enemy's butt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16571920/

I hope that stays the case Inde. Who knows what your Democrats will do if they win the Presidential office in the next election?

I hope the West can see what leaving such countries in anarchy will result in. The Taliban and the ICU are the inevitable results. Hopefully they won't allow either to come back into power.
Independents4Bush Wrote:Well you understand the culture better. However I know 130 of the islamo nazis were taken out there. Trust me when I say we're not leaving until we win in Iraq. In Afghanistan we definately won't leave and we are kicking the enemy's butt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16571920/

Kicking Butt is one thing, but winning a war involves much more than that. Vietnam is a classic example. The key to winning is "political will". Without that, all the arse kicking in the world will fail to get you a single cup of Victory Coffee.
John,

Yes,and we don't have the national will to whip more than Panama right now. It's past time we reflect that desire level with an equal ambition level,IMO.
Yes, it's not a matter of "kicking butt", the military on its own will achieve precious little. The solution to both Afghanistan and Iraq will be a political one. The US, the present admin, will have to let go of some pride and their very own agenda and consider solutions which may well be uncomfortable and not directly further the interests of the US in the region.

People, including US citizens by now, do not want an expensive, useless war any longer.
Stroll,

This is where you are wrong. There can be no political solution with Islamists anymore than Churchill may have saved the UK by making a deal with Hitler.

The solution is massive death rates for the Islamists. Otherwise,they rule. It is my honest opinion Islamists will rule in Iraq and Afghanistan openly within 5 years. America isn't up to this fight and no one else even wants to fight.

Deal with Bin laden? I think he would end up as uncompromising as Hitler.
Palladin Wrote:Stroll,

This is where you are wrong. There can be no political solution with Islamists anymore than Churchill may have saved the UK by making a deal with Hitler.

The solution is massive death rates for the Islamists. Otherwise,they rule. It is my honest opinion Islamists will rule in Iraq and Afghanistan openly within 5 years. America isn't up to this fight and no one else even wants to fight.

Deal with Bin laden? I think he would end up as uncompromising as Hitler.
-------------------
You are so right, Palladin.

The US should never have removed Saddam. The other strategy could be to keep friendly ties with Saddam and try to control him as much as possible with UN sanctions on WMD:s, pressure for some self-governance for Kurds and Shias etc. Which actually was on its way before the 2003 invasion.

Saddam was an efficient blocker of extreme Islamist influence in Iraq.

But now the game is lost to the Islamists.

/track_snake
Quote: The solution is massive death rates for the Islamists. Otherwise,they rule. It is my honest opinion Islamists will rule in Iraq and Afghanistan openly within 5 years. America isn't up to this fight and no one else even wants to fight.
You're still seeing this exclusively as an America versus Islamist issue, which it isn't. There is civil war, different religious factions and interest groups fighting each other and the occupiers.
It isn't about the US "winning" any more, it's about finding a solution which may be uncomfortable, but acceptable.

The neo-con dream is over, they've lost.
track_snake Wrote:-------------------
You are so right, Palladin.

The US should never have removed Saddam. The other strategy could be to keep friendly ties with Saddam and try to control him as much as possible with UN sanctions on WMD:s, pressure for some self-governance for Kurds and Shias etc. Which actually was on its way before the 2003 invasion.

Saddam was an efficient blocker of extreme Islamist influence in Iraq.

But now the game is lost to the Islamists.

/track_snake

Hi TS. The problem as I see it was that Saddam was always very difficult to work with. Yes, he controlled the Islamists within the portions of Iraq he ruled very harshly, but at the same time he funded and armed Islamist Kurds in the North. He was always willing to work with Islamists outside of Iraq where it best served his purposes and you could never tell what would be his purpose next. The Kuwaitis who funded him to the amount of Billions of dollars during the 80s while Iraq was fighting Iran discovered this later when Iraqi forces roled into Kuwait city.

I have often thought that the best American policy may have been to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement with Saddam to fight the Islamists together but I just don't know if it would have worked out in the end. Saddam was just too cunning of a partner to trust.

So many people on the left have always whined the old mantra "It was all about oil". but that is plainly false. America would have spent far less by cooperating with Saddam and working out a deal to buy his oil at some % points below the international spot market rate. Instead they have spent billions of dollars to liberate Iraq and pay international rates for Iraqi oil. The oil argument just doesn't make sense economically.
stroll Wrote:You're still seeing this exclusively as an America versus Islamist issue, which it isn't. There is civil war, different religious factions and interest groups fighting each other and the occupiers.
It isn't about the US "winning" any more, it's about finding a solution which may be uncomfortable, but acceptable.

The neo-con dream is over, they've lost.

Stroll is correct here in many ways. The issues in Iraq are more Sunni Islam vs Shia Islam along with Arab vs Persians and along with Arabs vs Kurds. Most Kurds are Sunni and they would normally cooperate with other Sunnis against the Shias, but quite often in Iraq they are finding that they have to instead cooperate with the Shias against the Arab Sunnis. There is also the dispute between secularists and the Islamists on both sides (Sunni and Shia) which is ongoing. The Sunnis have their fundamentalists as do the Shia and the secularists on both sides are being squeezed out.

As for Stroll's issue with the "neo-con's" I still believe he is simply voicing his fantasies. In that regard he has less contact with reality than George W has about Iraq. :lol:
Seif,

Oh,I think it's clear at least to me that we would have been much better off ignoring Iraq now and I do agree that Iraq is a civil religious conflict that pretty much is not my business.

However,in the battles we choose to fight,winning is only possible by immolating the opposition as we did in Germany and Japan. Iraq would be calmer by far right now if we had fried Fallujah in early 2004,I am sure of this. I know,it would have killed civilians,but winning wars in civilizational differences requires it AND long term less Muslims would die if we DID act like barbarians early on after 9-11,IMO.

Just like atomic bombs may have saved the Japanese people. Wasn't why we used them,but it may have worked out that way anyway.

America doesn't mean business and our enemies understand that .

As far as neo cons,I've explained to Stroll they are what 90% of Americans have believed since 1945 about America's role,their only uniqueness is they are formerly Marxist Jews. Since Jews tend to rise to the top in various fields,the "neo-cons" are seen as something unique here,but the average man on the street in Peoria shares their desires.

I wonder if Stroll is anti Jewish? A lot of people use that term as a euphemism for Jews "controlling America" just like Hitler claimed they "controlled Germany". I'm not saying he is,but I can't help but wonder.

The people control America,for better or worse.
Palladin Wrote:Oh,I think it's clear at least to me that we would have been much better off ignoring Iraq now and I do agree that Iraq is a civil religious conflict that pretty much is not my business.
It is 'your' business, as you have created the present situation. The US has a moral obligation to stay on, not in order to humiliate and kill, as one of your favourite private phantasies is, but in order to aid stability until a sustainable solution for the future is found. This solution will be political, not military.

Quote:I wonder if Stroll is anti Jewish? A lot of people use that term as a euphemism for Jews "controlling America" just like Hitler claimed they "controlled Germany". I'm not saying he is,but I can't help but wonder.
I suggest that, instead of "wondering", you read my comments on the subject. Wink1
I have not associated Jews with neo-cons, your friend John did, nor have I claimed either the neo-cons or Jews control America.

It's a failed attempt to put yet another unjustified label on me, by John and co. S2
Stroll,

Neo cons ARE Jews. Do a search. They are reformed Marxists. Has nothing to do with John.Your use of the term may not show anti Jewish intent,but for many that's the reason they use the term. They aren't bold enough to repeat the old "protocols of the elders of Zion" bs,so they say "Neo Cons" instead.

I will take you at your word and apologize for the comment.

They believe as 90% of Americans have since 1945,the "neo con" agenda is ours. If it is failed,so is America's post war foreign affair paradigm(which is perfectly fine with me).

Concerning Iraq,we have no responsibilities there. We gave them back sovereignty,we trained their Army and died giving them space and they've chosen what they've chosen.

All the problems are THEIR doing and their responsibility. Removing Saddam made it possible,but they chose the path they chose.

Germans could have acted this way after Hitler and some would have blamed that on us,too and not the perpetrators of crime.
The militias, terrorists and baathists are behind the violence. We have to take them out, let the soldiers do what they were trained to do. Once we destroy them as organizations most of Iraq's violence will go away. We can have a government that fights international terrorism and then we can leave. If Iraqis fight each other at a lower scale it doesn't matter because that will die down on it's own.

In a mixed neighborhood for example in which the only doctor is a sunni, shiites may think twice before taking him out. When a sunni needs his shiite business partner for his business to succeed he'll think twice before allowing him to die. The problem is the militias, and baathists who only care about seizing control and not living their every day lives. The problem in Iraq is apathy by most Iraqis but that same apathy will keep most from joining violent movements.

Take out the militias, full scale war on them and take out the capability of their foreign supporters from helping them. I'm talking about Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, take those two out and Iran will have more problems to deal with than to be efficiently impose their will on Iraq. Most Iraqis are young, they will get along just fine and build the "neocon" dream so many fascists and marxists hate.

After growing up in mostly war, the gulf war, the current sectarian violence, terrorism, this has taken its tole on those young Iraqis. We need to destroy the militias, baathists and keep a light force in their to keep out foreign terrorists. I think the baathist will be willing to end the fighting though so it's important to take out the shiite militias which are Iran's arm in Iraq and see how the baathists react. If they don't stop the violence you'll have to take them out.
Independents4Bush Wrote:The militias, terrorists and baathists are behind the violence. We have to take them out, let the soldiers do what they were trained to do. Once we destroy them as organizations most of Iraq's violence will go away. We can have a government that fights international terrorism and then we can leave. If Iraqis fight each other at a lower scale it doesn't matter because that will die down on it's own.

In a mixed neighborhood for example in which the only doctor is a sunni, shiites may think twice before taking him out. When a sunni needs his shiite business partner for his business to succeed he'll think twice before allowing him to die. The problem is the militias, and baathists who only care about seizing control and not living their every day lives. The problem in Iraq is apathy by most Iraqis but that same apathy will keep most from joining violent movements.

Take out the militias, full scale war on them and take out the capability of their foreign supporters from helping them. I'm talking about Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, take those two out and Iran will have more problems to deal with than to be efficiently impose their will on Iraq. Most Iraqis are young, they will get along just fine and build the "neocon" dream so many fascists and marxists hate.

After growing up in mostly war, the gulf war, the current sectarian violence, terrorism, this has taken its tole on those young Iraqis. We need to destroy the militias, baathists and keep a light force in their to keep out foreign terrorists. I think the baathist will be willing to end the fighting though so it's important to take out the shiite militias which are Iran's arm in Iraq and see how the baathists react. If they don't stop the violence you'll have to take them out.
--------------------------------------------
Militias and terrorists is true. Baathists is a little different since that was a secular political party that now is prohibited in Iraq. Baathists - if there are still some there - are rather harmless. Of course they are out for revenge since they have been more or less eradicated and their former leader executed.

If you want a more peaceful Iraq I think you should consider letting Baathists get back their old positions in the bureaucracy and being allowed as a party in Iraq. I know that some steps have been taken to let Baathists get government jobs but much is left to do to heal the wounds.

But militias and terrorists - go after them!

/track_snake
They can call themselves the Iraqi red cross, baathists are baathists. I think these people will make a deal to stop the violence but we need to deal with the militia first. They need to know they won't be dealt the fate they dealt the shiites.

Track you're right these baathist are also experienced in their fields. They can help Iraq run itself in the meanwhile in technocratic fields. The militias and terrorists have to go but we need to make it clear to the baathist they go when they end the insurgency.

Ending the militias and foreign terrorists requires taking out the regime in Syria. It'd also weaken the baathists who would be desperate to strike a deal.
Independents4Bush Wrote:They can call themselves the Iraqi red cross, baathists are baathists. I think these people will make a deal to stop the violence but we need to deal with the militia first. They need to know they won't be dealt the fate they dealt the shiites.

Track you're right these baathist are also experienced in their fields. They can help Iraq run itself in the meanwhile in technocratic fields. The militias and terrorists have to go but we need to make it clear to the baathist they go when they end the insurgency.

Ending the militias and foreign terrorists requires taking out the regime in Syria. It'd also weaken the baathists who would be desperate to strike a deal.
----------------
Well. The deal should have been struck with their leader Saddam, but he is not around any more.

I don't think it is so important to take out the regime in Syria. The question is what you would get instead. More important to go after Shia extremists and Iranians.

And capture Al-Sadr and send him to Guantanamo.

/track_snake
Pages: 1 2