Unintended NeoConsequences
By Mitch Berg
Invading Iraq – so says the opposition – caused thousands of marginalized, angry Moslems to flock to Iraq to join Al Queda.
Where we killed them, mauled them, demoralized them, and killed them some more, to the point where they are a tiny fraction of what they were.
A prolific jihadist sympathizer has posted an ‘explosive’ study on one of the main jihadist websites in which he laments the dire situation that the mujaheddin find themselves in Iraq by citing the steep drop in the number of insurgent operations conducted by the various jihadist groups, most notably Al-Qaeda’s 94 percent decline in operational ability over the last 12 months when only a year and half ago Al-Qaeda accounted for 60 percent of all jihadist activity!
Read, naturally, the whole thing.
(Via Powerline)
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Invading Iraq – so says the opposition – caused thousands of marginalized, angry Moslems to flock to Iraq to join Al Queda
Actually Mitch, that’s the NEO-con line, that you are drawing terrorists to Iraq – the ACTUAL line, which you’ve missed yet again, is that IRAQ has been a ’cause d’ celeb’ for Al Qaeda worldwide, and, in case you missed it, it was not only said by your opponents, but by the National Intelligence Estimate (you know, the one that was delayed and then finally released), the one that is put together by the entire intelligence apparatus of the US, the one done by people who know FAR better than you – that Iraq has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
Once again, it’s Mitch shifting the goal posts to conflate the antagonism created by Iraq, with the facts on the ground IN Iraq that if you stopped killing the civilians wontonly, stopped shooting the Qu’Ran, and claiming Abu Ghraib was a ‘fraternity prank’, that this secular nation, a nation which was NOT harboring Al Qaeda before our invasion, would cease doing so, probably pretty easily comparatively. No Mitch, your conflation of AQI as reflective of the broader reality simply isn’t acceptable. Your opponents were and are right, and you are and were wrong to try to claim beating AQI was somehow predicted ONLY by you, especially since you denied there was anything wrong with the strategy that failed in 2003-2006. You want to change the subject, sorry pal, but some of us have memories enough to recall you claiming things would be over by Nov 2006 (whcih you said in Nov 2005).
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Invading Iraq – so says the opposition – caused thousands of marginalized, angry Moslems to flock to Iraq to join Al Queda
Actually Mitch, that’s the NEO-con line, that you are drawing terrorists to Iraq – the ACTUAL line, which you’ve missed yet again, is that IRAQ has been a ’cause d’ celeb’ for Al Qaeda worldwide, and, in case you missed it, it was not only said by your opponents, but by the National Intelligence Estimate (you know, the one that was delayed and then finally released), the one that is put together by the entire intelligence apparatus of the US, the one done by people who know FAR better than you – that Iraq has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
Once again, it’s Mitch shifting the goal posts to conflate the antagonism created by Iraq, with the facts on the ground IN Iraq that if you stopped killing the civilians wontonly, stopped shooting the Qu’Ran, and claiming Abu Ghraib was a ‘fraternity prank’, that this secular nation, a nation which was NOT harboring Al Qaeda before our invasion, would cease doing so, probably pretty easily comparatively. No Mitch, your conflation of AQI as reflective of the broader reality simply isn’t acceptable. Your opponents were and are right, and you are and were wrong to try to claim beating AQI was somehow predicted ONLY by you, especially since you denied there was anything wrong with the strategy that failed in 2003-2006. You want to change the subject, sorry pal, but some of us have memories enough to recall you claiming things would be over by Nov 2006 (whcih you said in Nov 2005).
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Invading Iraq – so says the opposition – caused thousands of marginalized, angry Moslems to flock to Iraq to join Al Queda
Actually Mitch, that’s the NEO-con line, that you are drawing terrorists to Iraq – the ACTUAL line, which you’ve missed yet again, is that IRAQ has been a ’cause d’ celeb’ for Al Qaeda worldwide, and, in case you missed it, it was not only said by your opponents, but by the National Intelligence Estimate (you know, the one that was delayed and then finally released), the one that is put together by the entire intelligence apparatus of the US, the one done by people who know FAR better than you – that Iraq has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
Once again, it’s Mitch shifting the goal posts to conflate the antagonism created by Iraq, with the facts on the ground IN Iraq that if you stopped killing the civilians wontonly, stopped shooting the Qu’Ran, and claiming Abu Ghraib was a ‘fraternity prank’, that this secular nation, a nation which was NOT harboring Al Qaeda before our invasion, would cease doing so, probably pretty easily comparatively. No Mitch, your conflation of AQI as reflective of the broader reality simply isn’t acceptable. Your opponents were and are right, and you are and were wrong to try to claim beating AQI was somehow predicted ONLY by you, especially since you denied there was anything wrong with the strategy that failed in 2003-2006. You want to change the subject, sorry pal, but some of us have memories enough to recall you claiming things would be over by Nov 2006 (whcih you said in Nov 2005).
May 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
Not sure where you learned writing, Peev, but saying the same thing three times is NOT three times as impactful.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:18 am
Your entire response is tangential and mostly off topic.
I might answer later…
…but first, I’d like you to run down to the thread you messed all over yesterday and read this bit here, from an actual lawyer.
He eats your lunch. OK, that’s “damnation by faint praise”, but seriously, your entire premise of your entire tantrum yesterday was bogus from the ground up.
Read it and acknowledge your flagrant ignorance on that topic, before I expose more of the same here.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:34 am
The day Peev acknowledges his flagrant ignorance on ANY topic is the day I swear off toilet humor.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Hip waders? Check.
Bug spray? Check.
Camelbak full? Check.
OK. It’s off to the fever swamp.
Actually Mitch, that’s the NEO-con line, that you are drawing terrorists to Iraq
No, Peevish, it’s our response to the slur that invading Iraq has made terror worse. And for a while it did – in Iraq. And now they’re dead.
is that IRAQ has been a ’cause d’ celeb’ for Al Qaeda worldwide, and, in case you missed it, it was not only said by your opponents, but by the National Intelligence Estimate (you know, the one that was delayed and then finally released), the one that is put together by the entire intelligence apparatus of the US, the one done by people who know FAR better than you – that Iraq has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
a) the word you’re looking for is cause celebre.
b) Yes. That is the point of the article. AQ thugs flocked to the cause celebre. And they died.
Once again, it’s Mitch shifting the goal posts to conflate the antagonism created by Iraq, with the facts on the ground IN Iraq that if you stopped killing the civilians wontonly,
Killing wontonly? You mean, they were folded up around wads of cream cheese and deep-fried to a yummy golden brown?
Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “wanton?”
stopped shooting the Qu’Ran,
Good Lord, you are desperate.
and claiming Abu Ghraib was a ‘fraternity prank’,
Peev, I have no idea if you are intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. Abu Ghraib was a crime. It was investigated, tried and punished.
that this secular nation, a nation which was NOT harboring Al Qaeda before our invasion,
Untrue, as usual!
you are and were wrong to try to claim beating AQI was somehow predicted ONLY by you
Never said I was the ONLY one.
especially since you denied there was anything wrong with the strategy that failed in 2003-2006.
Right. Because I’m a self-declared expert on these things, right?
Oh, wait – I never claimed that, either!
You want to change the subject, sorry pal, but some of us have memories enough to recall you claiming things would be over by Nov 2006 (whcih you said in Nov 2005).
Gosh, Peevish – a prediction I, a simple midwestern blogger, made for purely hyperbolic purposes was wrong! I guess that invalidates the whole war!
And some of us have memories enough to recall you saying that the surge wouldn’t work, either!
Of course, it has nothign to do with the subject above, but whatever.
Hey – have you gone back to the TIZA post and replied to Jay Reding, who completely shredded your “credentials” argument, showing it up for the factual and intellectual waste of time it was?
Go respond to him. If you have the cojones.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Yoss:
“The day Peev acknowledges his flagrant ignorance on ANY topic is the day I swear off toilet humor.”
Whoa! Let’s not be too hasty. Peev might just do that to spite you, Yoss. Besides, miracles can happen.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:56 am
I left myself some legal wiggle room, Badda. Swearing off toilet humor still leaves the door open for all manner of poop and fart jokes, as well as a wide range of other bodily functions. Actual TOILET toilet humor is a pretty niche area of comedy.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:06 am
Boy, you sure do put a lot of faith in anonymous “al Qaeda” guys. If it were remotely divergent from your party line, you kooks would claim the press cooked it up.
Bin Laden, still on the loose though, eh? And Mullah Omar? Ayman Zawahiri? Cause if you kill a couple hundred Americans, Bush wants you to know you’ll face, um, well, nothing really. Too bin Laden doesn’t have an overdue student loan. Those guys are better at tracking people down than Shrub et al.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am
Bin Laden, still on the loose though, eh?
Boy, you sure do put a lot of faith in a guy who hasn’t shown his face outside a cave in seven years!
May 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Elvis has had more time out in public this century than Bin Laden.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am
I love how you wingnuts pretend the guy’s dead. Guess it beats admitting that Bush has been completely impotent in carrying through on his big talk of SEVEN years ago. And that Public Enemy Nos. 1-3 are still on the loose. Oh, and A.Q. Khan is doing pretty well, thanks for asking.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
How long did it take to nail Gotti?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Woulda taken about 10 seconds if the goal was to put a cruise missle up his ass, Badda. Come to think of it, has Bush looked for bin Laden in the Bergin Hunt and Fish Club in Ozone Park? The Baddabing in North Jersey?
I guess you’re thinking we should arrest bin Laden and put him on trial for racketeering.
Wingnuts!
May 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Woulda taken about 10 seconds if the goal was to put a cruise missle up his ass, Badda
Right. Because while Gotti’s crimes had to be dealt with through due process, his location was generally pretty well-known.
Scorecard for those of you keeping track: Mob bosses – easy to find (and target with cruise missiles), hard to convict.
Bin Laden is hiding in an immense mass of sympathizers in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Manhattan (since Clinton let him escape for not being poll-friendly enough). Hard to find, unless you carpet-bomb all three with nukes.
Mark your scorecard: easy to convict, hard to find.
Big difference, right?
Right?
Hey, have you looked at the FBI’s ten most wanted? They have guys on there who’ve been wanted since the eighties! Damn President Bush!
May 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
So bin Laden’s alive? You wingnuts change your tune quicker than a car radio on crank.
Gee, did Bush go on national TV and threaten to “smoke out” Whitey Bulger? Did any of those guys kill a couple thousand Americans?
Bush must have some of that awful “malaise,” eh?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
He dodged the question, didn’t he?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Sure, Badda, Mitch’s Gotti parallel was right on point.
This isn’t a blog. It’s a support group for ignorant wingnuts.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
You wingnuts change your tune quicker than a car radio on crank
I suspect he’s probably alive, for all the good it does him or AQ. No tune changed.
did Bush go on national TV and threaten to “smoke out” Whitey Bulger
Does Bulger hide from the FBI among millions of adherents to a radical sect of the Mob – “Al Guido?”
May 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
For the record, AC, I, not Mitch, am the one who suspects bin Laden is a dried smear of crimson on a rock somewhere on the Afghan/Pakistan border. I fully acknowledge that he COULD be alive, I just have my doubts.
You may chalk it up to a mad, wingnut delusion if you so choose. I don’t care much, either way.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Of course you don’t, Cathcart. You’ve chosen your method of resolving the cognitive dissonance between your view of Bush as a “tough guy” and his complete impotence in failing to punish those responsible for 9/11. You’ve decided to pretend bin Laden is dead – despite all the evidence to the contrary.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Project much, AC?
I’ve never considered Bush a “tough guy.” Despite what that marble clunking around inside your skull may be telling you, my opinions regarding the Bush admin are a bit more nuanced than your preconceptions would expect.
As to “all the evidence to the contrary?” Garbled audio tapes leaked to al-Jazeera that “sounds like” bin Laden isn’t actually the smoking gun of evidence you’d like to believe.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Nuance? Aren’t you wingnuts always saying that’s for socialist French pansies? Nuance and wingnuttery are mutually exclusive.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Nuance and wingnuttery are mutually exclusive.
This from a guy who wears big floppy shoes.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
No, AC… you dodged the question.