Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
1. "Al-Qeada in Iraq", the movement Schneed identified, is not bin-laden's "Al-Qeada". Rather it is a pre-existing Sunni extremist group that declared its allegiance to bin-laden after a new Iraqi govt. was established. By all accounts, this group has steadily lost credibility and recruits since the surge.
True earlier in the war. Again, however, every report out of Iraq lately is that the pendulum has swung and the populous is now viewing the extremists as just that and it is their intransigence and commitment to violence that is driving the populous away.
At some point, people realize that the extremists have no solution but violence and see that the cycle of violence can only be broken(and thus the collateral damage stop) by coming up with non-violent solutions. The US and the Iraqi govt. are open to non-violent solutions, AQI is not. As the US shows that it is not opposed to peace and prosperity for Iraqis (and, in fact, is actually striving for that end), Iraqis and other Arabs see that and realize who is actually causing the violence.
Been out drinking and hanging out in the sun all day so this post probably makes no sense. Just pointing out that the Al-queada connection implied by Saden was wrong. Flame away.
|
You speak for Schneed now?
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.
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.
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.