Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
You speak for Schneed now?
|
No. Schneed speaks more than well enough for himself. You, however, made an inaccurate statement in your rebuttal. I was simply drawing attention to your inaccuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Oh, I see now, the Iraqi Al-Qeada branch isn't really part of the bin -Laden franchise. They really existed in Iraq before as some other group and were plotting to kill Americans. After we invaded Iraq they joined Al-Qeada family but that really wasn't because of us, they were planning to do it anyways.
|
<sigh> The group that became popularly known as Al-Qeada In Iraq in October, 2004 is now allied to - but was not originally part of - the Osama led Al-Qeada. They are, in fact, different groups - AQI is a group originally led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed in 2006) that began as part of the Sunni counter-insurgency organized after the US invasion.
AQI's official name is different than "Al-Qeada In Iraq" (It's something like "Jihad in the Country of Two Rivers"). AQI simply did not exist under that name at the time of the original invasion and, prior to the invasion, the group that became known as AQI did not exist at all as many members were part of Sunni power structure. After the fall of the Iraqi Baathist government, Zarqawi led a faction of the Sunni counter-insurgency eventually declaring himself and his followers as allies to Osama.
Your original assertion that there was no Al-Qeada presence in Iraq prior to the invasion is generally accepted to be true with the caveat that, due to his increasing isolation by the West, there was evidence that Saddam was beginning to reach out to Sunni extremist groups, including al-qeada, for support.
Based on Schneed's original statement and the points he was debating, however, it is my impression that the discussion was not about pre-war al-qaeda but who the
curent enemies are and what there
current role is. Your reference to pre-war al-qeada as part of THAT discussion was inaccurate and irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
If everything is so cool and nice, why not pickup and leave? I get it, we've made progress but not enough to hand over the country yet. It's getting better by the day though. We just have to stick to it even if we have to pay people off and setup a puppet corrupt government.
|
So we should just pick-up and leave and let the fragile peace that is taking hold - end? Good plan. Further, I have not seen allegations of corruption or puppet government raised before even by the Dems. What is the basis for such assertions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
If I'm wrong I fail to see the wrong turn I took. I think you might want to re-read my earlier post. It's pretty clear, reasoned, and self explanatory
|
I think Schneed has very accurately stated the wrong turn you took. I, however, was simply referring to your inaccurate and irrelevant implication that "al-qeada" and "al-qeada in iraq" are synonmous.