IRAQ: Al-Qaeda linked group claims blasts ( for the deadly twin suicide attacks in Arbil)

NEWS.com.au ^ | February 5, 2004 | From correspondents in Dubai AFP

[Dr. Frank fan]

This darn war in Iraq is distracting us from the real war against Al Qaeda.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OK!

Thanks for the alert on this!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Yeah, right!!!

Please read and help alert all to this important information:

Armor shell games & body bags

Our newly deployed troops have problems getting armor which is vital!

[Huck]

The article says alleged links to Al Quaida. Is this more of that top notch intel we've been reading about?

[cripplecreek]

I think we're witnessing the very early beginning of the end of terrorism. I think AQ and others have created a monster that is quickly getting out of thier control. They have issued statements asking to take care and avoid killing too many muslims, yet the rate increases.

Things are going to get a lot nastier before they get better but i believe we have done some serious damage to the terror networks of the world.

[Lunatic Fringe]

But keep in mind... Iraq and Al-Qaeda have NOTHING to do with each other!

[Dr. Frank fan]

The article says alleged links to Al Quaida.

Do you have a solid reason to doubt that this group of people has links to "Al Qaeda"?

[Huck]

Do you have a solid reason to doubt that this group of people has links to "Al Qaeda"?

Yes. Our intelligence sucks.

[Dr. Frank fan]

[Do you have a solid reason to doubt that this group of people has links to "Al Qaeda"?] Yes. Our intelligence sucks.

Hmm. Yet it is precisely our intelligence which tells us that there exists a group of people called "Al Qaeda" and that they were responsible for the kamikaze attacks of 9/11/2001. Perhaps that is wrong too?

Ok then, I'll just disbelieve that as well, and choose to believe that Saddam Hussein himself was behind 9/11.

You can't say I'm wrong, can you? On what basis? You think that "Al Qaeda" was behind 9/11? Pssh. Says who? There's no such thing as "Al Qaeda". What? You believe our intelligence? But have you forgotten? Our intelligence sucks!

[Huck]

Hmm. Yet it is precisely our intelligence which tells us that there exists a group of people called "Al Qaeda" and that they were responsible for the kamikaze attacks of 9/11/2001. Perhaps that is wrong too?

Were aren't relying on "alleged" ties coming from who knows where to prove that Al Queda exists. They have declared their existance, we have seen video of Osama. There is real evidence (something lacking in many circles these days.) Nice try though.

Ok then, I'll just disbelieve that as well, and choose to believe that Saddam Hussein himself was behind 9/11.

And I didn't say I had reason to disbelieve. I said I had reason to doubt. They are not the same thing. Again, nice try.

You can't say I'm wrong, can you? On what basis? You think that "Al Qaeda" was behind 9/11? Pssh. Says who?

Says Osama.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

Nice try, though.

There's no such thing as "Al Qaeda". What? You believe our intelligence? But have you forgotten? Our intelligence sucks!

Our intel does suck. Enough so to doubt an unattributed "alleged" link to Al Queda, that's for sure. Doubt, Dr. Frank. I would think a man of science would be familiar with the concept.

[Dr. Frank fan]

["Al Qaeda"] They have declared their existance,

Are you sure? I'm not even sure they call themselves "Al Qaeda", for starters.

we have seen video of Osama.

Yes we have. I agree that there is a guy named Osama bin Laden and that we have sources for this which are more or less independent of intelligence. But the idea that he is in charge of a group called "Al Qaeda" and that it is namely this group which has responsibility for what happened on 9/11/2001 comes from intelligence. (Which "sucks", so therefore, apparently, is wrong.)

And I didn't say I had reason to disbelieve. I said I had reason to doubt.

Point taken. Doubt away.

["Al Qaeda" behind 9/11] Says Osama. (link)

Oh please. That transcript is a translation from Arabic that was made by our intelligence (which "sucks"). So it must be incorrect. For all I know they could've been exchanging recipes. Also, even if the transcript is accurate, Osama may express familiarity with the attacks and his responsibility for them - but he never mentions any group named "Al Qaeda"! The allusions to the group behind the attacks are interpreted to be references to "Al Qaeda", by our intelligence (which "sucks").

Doubt, Dr. Frank. I would think a man of science would be familiar with the concept.

Doubt is fine and dandy.

So here we are in a war against (lefties say) some group called "Al Qaeda", and nobody else. Lefties say they want us to fight this war, and not get "distracted" by other things (like Iraq). Okay, fine. So then where the hell are we supposed to send our soldiers to fight "Al Qaeda"?

Here's a group of people in Iraq which (ALLEGEDLY) is tied to that group, "Al Qaeda". You doubt those ties (because our intelligence "sucks"). Well, that's great. But so what, then? You got a better idea? If you know of a group, in some place, which has MORE DEFINITE (not just alleged) ties to "Al Qaeda", then speak up, I'm all ears.

But the criticism that Iraq is "distracting" us from fighting "Al Qaeda" makes no sense unless you actually have a real reason to disbelieve (not just "doubt") that some of these groups in Iraq are connected to "Al Qaeda". So do you?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So here we are in a war against (lefties say) some group called "Al Qaeda", and nobody else. Lefties say they want us to fight this war, and not get "distracted" by other things (like Iraq). Okay, fine. So then where the hell are we supposed to send our soldiers to fight "Al Qaeda"?

Good one!!!

[Lady Heron]

The article says alleged links to Al Quaida. Is this more of that top notch intel we've been reading about?

Agence France-Presse

Or just maybe top notch French reporting....we can't let it look like the US was ever right now can we.

[AdmSmith]

Ansar al-Sunna : This http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Investigation/Insider_DTR_031209.html is from Dec 9:

Fundamentalist Group Says It Will Continue Attacking the U.S. Even If It Leaves Iraq
A statement attributed to 'Jaysh Ansar Al Sunna' (the army of the supporters of the sunna) threatened to keep targeting the U.S. forces even after they leave Iraq. It also warned that it will attack party leaders and Iraqi organizations, accusing all Iraqis in center and south Iraq of treason. (Asharq Al Awsat)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Looks like ABC changed the content>

[yonif]

Al Queda will be found to be in every fight aimed at killing Americans and it will be continuing to spread militant Islam.

[yonif]

Also, Al Queda and the other terrorist groups flowing into Iraq, are not fighting to restore a similar government as Saddam's. They probably hated his secular government. But it does not matter, they are united in their militant Islamic ideology aimed at killing Christians and Jews. The fight against US occupation in Iraq will soon wither away, and replaced by a terrorist war that looks to kill Jews and Christians where ever they are and represented as the US soldiers there in that specific location - although through their propaganda they will say they are fighting "occupation" (this is kind of like Hamas, and the PLO, who say they are fighting the "occupation" when they really fighting the Jewish people, no matter if it was there or not, and even if Israel were to give up 1967 lands).