Things I learned this weekend
Bookworm on Dec 11 2006 at 8:45 am | Filed under: Gun control, Iraq
I have a deadline that’s going to keep me hopping for a couple of hours, but I’ll share with you two things I learned this weekend. First, I learned that, in my very blue neighborhood, there are surprisingly large numbers of gun owners, wannabee gun owners, and hunters. Who knew?
Second, I learned from an extremely reputable source that domestic terrorist task forces think Iraq made their job harder at home by becoming, essentially, a terrorist summer camp. Conversation shifted, so I was not able to to ask this person whether the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan the war had themselves been significant sources, but we just weren’t watching then; or whether the Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., would be problems even now, after 9/11, without Iraq in the equation. I also didn’t ask him whether the lack of an attack on Ameican soil meant that, while terrorists are training in Iraq, they’re also easier to kill and/or locate in Iraq.
del.icio.us
digg it
Email This Post To A Friend
31 Responses to “Things I learned this weekend”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m a liberal and I have a gun. Iraq is pretty simple to understand. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we destroyed Saddam’s regime, and no evidence that Saddam was particularly involved in terrorism. Now Iraq is one of the biggest terrorist training grounds on the planet, with poorly trained American soldiers almost daily doing things that make us more hated and give terrorists more support. We have literally created what we fear most in Iraq, mission accomplished?
JMO —Doug
Ummmmmm–guns
I just learned that it’s really hard to do Homer Simpson using only a keyboard.
Kidding aside–the high number of liberal gun ownership doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. An excellent example would be Rosie O’Donnell, who wants to prohibit everyone but herself from owning a gun.
Liberals are the same with taxes for “helping the poor.” Haven’t you ever wondered why liberals don’t just give their own money to the needy or social programs they (supposedly) support? It’s because they’ll only do it when everyone else forced to do so as well; basically, they lack conviction. They’ll give what portion of their income (in taxes that they can’t shelter) to help others only because they know EVERYONE else has been forced to do so as well. Want to make a liberal spitting mad? Suggest that they are free to give away all their money to support their causes but they are not free to force others to or to whine when others don’t.
Therefore, my assertion is that liberals will think about giving up their guns only after everyone else has been forced to.
I’m a liberal and have no gun. I’m a pacifist and have no need for one. But I’m not really opposed to squirrel huntin’. I think if you defend the rights to free speech and freedom of religion that it follows that you defend the right to bear arms (unless, of course, you lobby for an amendment). It hate guns. But that’s just my opinion, not what I’d defend. (Yes, I do have the right to hate guns.) I think the number of guns we have in this country is out of control and that people handle them irresponsibly. I am opposed to minors owning and having free access to guns. I think adults need to protect children.
There I’ll agree, while I am very much in favor of the right to bear arms, tons could be done to prevent guns from falling into the hands of children and criminals without infringing on anyone’s rights. JMO —Doug
I don’t know anybody who doesn’t have a gun - liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
Then again this area also features bears, mountain lions, wolves, bobcats, etc. The mailbox is 4/10s of a mile from the house, if you’re going to walk out there in the late afternoon when everyone’s looking for something to eat, you don’t do it unarmed.
People who own guns legally are almost never a problem, and when you pass increasing gun laws, that’s whose life you make difficult: the legal owners. The crooks don’t care about the laws in the first place, weren’t planning on obtaining their weapons legally, and increased control laws make zero difference to them. (This is logic, by the way, that five-year olds ought to be able to process; I don’t know why it’s so hard for democrats.)
No Al-Qaeda in Iraq… I don’t even know where to begin to go with a statement like that. I’ll keep it simple: yeah, there was. Saddam allowed them to come and go freely, use the facilities, the hospitals, rearm, convalesce on the banks of the rivers, etc., etc.
No proof of Al-Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam has ever been offered, Saddam and Al-Qaeda were sworn enemies. We basically destroyed possibly OBL’s biggest enemy in the Middle East and replaced it with a lawless failed state that will be breeding terrorists for decades, if not generations. A West Bank and Gaza strip to call our own. The scary thing is that may have been the plan all along, no one really believed that the Iraqis would throw flowers on our troops and grab our hands and march off into the democratic sunset with us, did they? Remember, Bush Sr arranged for any Iraqis who were so inclined to be butchered by Saddam after GW1. JMO —Doug
Yes, it has. Among it the fact that Bin Laden’s people (among them one of his numerous “second in command” people, can’t think of his name at the moment) were allowed to hide out there, and he specifically was treated in a hospital in Baghdad and allowed to recuperate there for months.
When I get some time I’ll go reference it for you - except that it’s been referenced all over the news a million times already, and you’ve simply chosen not to believe it.
It’s like saying there were no WMDs. Of course there were, and MI6 will tell you to this day that Joe Wilson is a liar, and Mossad will tell you where in the Bekaa Valley a lot of stuff was hidden while we dicked around with the UN for a year.
I’m confused about one thing, United Cats. Why are our soldiers poorly trained, while the Islamists are military dynamos? Or is this just a perception. It seems to me we have some of the best trained troops in the world, while the terrorist wannabees flowing into Iraq are mostly, well, just wannabees. Some of them are going to be successful in what they do, but I think it’s a bizarre perception that they’re military geniuses, able to master all things military in a single training camp, while our career, volunteer army is a bunch of yahoos.
Yep, liberal/Democratic myth at large here (as Bookworm notes)
‘iraq is a training ground..’ yeah, united cats, what about the rest of the world? The whole world is a training ground, and we all are the target. Skip the AQ in Iraq nonsense. As Kevin says, everybody knows differently.
It’s been undeniably proven that Saddam was a pacificist, hoping to spread harmony in the Middle East, until he was cruelly thwarted. And, of course, with Iran working hand in hand with Nancy Pelosi, all will soon be milk and honey in crazy Iraq. American soldiers are the real problem, so the Iranians advise us. YEAH.
How many more bodies do the Dems want in Iraq (and not just our soldiers)?
Get a brain, unitedcat(s). I’d feel a lot better if I heard you bashing Iran and her terrorists, not America.
Cats, they told us themselves. From the Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds-al-Arabi (editorial December 27 - 1998. (1998 came before 2003, when we went into Iraq.):
“President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” The editorial notes that this cooperation was largely based on the fact that: “bin-Laden was planning moving to Iraq before the recent strike.”
The four day air strike was that initiated by the noted military strategist and all-around hero Bill Clinton, who, you may recall, spent some 90 hours lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq in December 1998. Bin Laden had been planning on LIVING in Iraq.
No connection there, I guess.
You may recall the capture of Iraqi intelligence official Salah Suleiman, who was captured by Pakistani intelligence in October 1998 near the border between Pakistain and Afghanistan. People wondered what the hell an Iraqi intel official was doing on that border - Israeli intelligence pointed out that: “for the past two years Iraqi intelligence officers have been shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan.”
According to Czech intelligence, Mohammed Atta, operational ringleader of 9/11, met in June 2000 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir-al-Ani, consul and second secretary at the - ta-da - IRAQI embassy in Prague. Other reports indicate that al-Ani may have met with a second 9/11 hijacker, Khalid Almihdar, also in Prague, also in the Iraqi embassy, also long before we invaded Iraq.
Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Goss has confirmed that Atta and al-Ani met a second time in early April, 2001 in Prague. At the Iraqi embassy. (Czech officials kicked al-Ani out of the country later in 2001, after he’d been taking a little too much interest in local installations.)
Italian intelligence reported that Habib Faris Abdullah al-Mamouri, a general in the Iraqi Secret Service, met with Atta in Rome at the Iraqi embassy, and traveled to meet with him in Hamburg in July 2001. (al-Mamouri has not been seen in Rome since July, 2001, right after that meeting.)
The PBS (my God - PBS?) show “Frontline” interviews with former Iraqi intelligence and army officers pointed out contacts between Al-Queda operatives and someone referred to as “the Ghost.” Israeli intel says the “Ghost” is Abdel Hussein, chief trainer at the Salman Pak training camp inside Iraq. Salman Pak is the place that features a Boeing 707 used to practice hijacking scenarios. Google Salman Pak, you can get a picture if you wish.
1993 WTC attacker and al-Queda operative Ramzi Yousef (nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed) landed in America on an Iraqi passport. Al Queda operative and builder of the 1993 bomb, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was born in Indiana, raised in Iraq, and after the bombing he fled to Iraq, where he was seen and reported on by ABC news on July 27, 1994 which is, I believe, prior to 2003.
I don’t have time to continue here now. This would be one hell of a long post. I’m sorry that the mainstream media doesn’t spend much time on this, which I guess would constitute “proof,” but the fact that they haven’t done so hardly invalidates it.
I never said anything about the Iraqi insurgents being dynamos, though they have managed to fight our military for years now with increasing success. If our military is so suberbly trained and eqiuipped, why have they been unable to defeat the Iraqi insurgents?
I would have prefered no American bodies in Iraq, the American bodies in Iraq are Bush’s and the conservatives idea. It is sad (pathetic even) that the people who thought this invasion was such a grand idea are now blaming everyone on the planet but themselves for the predicted carnage that has ensued.
As for the weird straw man arguments about Saddam, the situation in Iraq now is an improvement? Just wait, it’s going to get a lot worse as the man in the White House continues to pretend that nothing is wrong with his “strategy.” —JMO Doug
As far as the “proof” cited above, nice example of cherry picking. One could write an infinitely longer list linking terror attacks to our erstwhile allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, why haven’t we invaded them to “protect” ourselves from terror? Maybe because this invasion is about imperialism and oil? JMO —Doug
“If our military is so suberbly trained and eqiuipped, why have they been unable to defeat the Iraqi insurgents?” That’s such a good question, United Cats, that I’m planning a whole post on the subject. I just finished a major project, though, and have another one I need to do, so this is going to be a dead blogging day, or at least a dead one for the next several years. Stay tuned, though.
No proof of Al-Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam has ever been offered
That’s why when I’m considering whether to kill a terrorist, it has nothing to do with proof. Makes things so much easier and ethical. Lawyers come into things, that’s when the evil starts going up.
We used to be the other way around. Where lawyers, like Bookworm, would come in and save people from mob rule and mob lynchings. But we’ve “progressed” beyond that. Now instead of worrying about executing or imprisoning the innocent, we see gross negligence and purposeful corruption when judges let go of child rapists and murderers.
Civilization is always on a tipping point. On one hand you have chaos, the Wild West. on the other hand, you have Nazi germany. I think people know in their guts which way we are acquiring too much of an extreme bent towards. Regimented order bears no difference to unleashed chaos.
Saddam and Al-Qaeda were sworn enemies.
That’s like saying the Republicans and Democrats are sworn enemies. Doesn’t mean they won’t ally against a common threat. I mean, come on, basic psychology here, don’t even need military history.
were allowed to hide out there, and he specifically was treated in a hospital in Baghdad and allowed to recuperate there for months.
Abu Sayyaf was in the NOrth fighting the Kurds, and Saddam got a sweet deal with that. I think the person you are refering to is Abu N(idas) somebody.
lot of stuff was hidden while we dicked around with the UN for a year.
Here’s some advice to the American Jacksonians. If you want to lose a war. Go the UN route. I guarantee you.
It seems to me we have some of the best trained troops in the world, while the terrorist wannabees flowing into Iraq are mostly, well, just wannabees.
We have the majority of the best trained troops in the world, Book. And not only that, we have the majority, supermajority, of combat hardened troops as well. The latter matters a lot more than the former.
wannabees flowing into Iraq are mostly, well, just wannabees.
They are useful cannon fodder, Book. The Al Qaeda boys take the would be jihadist from SA, and tell him to drive this car over to this area. Then the AL Qs detonate the car, with a remote trigger, with the driver still in it, using him as a remote piloted Vbomb. Without his knowledge. Useful. One driver actually survived this, and left shortly after giving an interview. Most people who analyze the trends and data on Iraq, already know about this, but others seem not to have the inclination or the time to pay attention to the important bits. Most suicide bombings in Iraq now are really “suicide”, as in voluntary suicide. In that, they volunteer you for the mission.
Book, if you have read CDR Sala’s website for his posts on Annapolis, you would be positioned to understand how peace rot affects an army or a military unit. Regardless of the branch. Iraq is a training zone for the United States US Marine Corps and the US Army. The only branch that gets left out almost completely, is the Navy. So peace rot affects the Navy most of all. Air Force, second. You cannot have a world class military without wars to fight in, Book. The more wars, the better your armed forces become. Iraq was the proof (Fallujah) that America cannot be beaten in CQB urban combat. Remember back in 9/11, when people were talking about how CQB urban combat would eat our arse like it did in Mogadishu? Well, it is nice to dispell that myth. It is good to know your limitations, book, but if you just sit around not attempting to push those limitations, you will lose in war. The popular belief is that numbers is what matters in a war. Hah, that might be true for logistics, but it ain’t for strategy or tactics.
That’s such a good question, United Cats, that I’m planning a whole post on the subject
The short answer is, “because the politicians are gutless wimps and won’t unleash the Full Power of the United States military”.
I would have prefered no American bodies in Iraq, the American bodies in Iraq are Bush’s and the conservatives idea. It is sad (pathetic even) that the people who thought this invasion was such a grand idea are now blaming everyone on the planet but themselves for the predicted carnage that has ensued.
They, not us, are simply taking a page from the Democrats, who they admire and seek sanction from. Blame everyone but yourself, in order to be righeous and sell books. It works, the Democrats have proven that it works, so obviously the weaker supporters of war (non-Jacksonians) would bail. The intellectuals always bail. More books sold that way.
How the hell do you “cherry-pick” proof? The meetings, the connections, the actions either happened or they didn’t. As it turns out, they did.
You can cherry pick proof if proof is a salad at a cocktail party. Which I think, is the atmosphere people seek to cultivate.
The salad might be good. But how about this other dish, JJ, over here? Doesn’t it “balance” out the salad?
It’s interesting to me that the Unitedcat-types out there continue to OVERLOOK the tiny little fact we’ve not yet had another 9/11! But, of course, such an unbelievably incredible outcome, thus far, is totally UNrealated to what we’ve been doing in Iraq. Right, Mr. Cats?
Also, anyone with the gaul to label our troops as “poorly trained American soldiers” has OBVIOUSLY never set even ONE LITTLE PIGGIE inside a fortress such as Camp Pendleton Marine Base, Oceanside, CA.
“Iraq is pretty simple to understand.”
That statement is so ludicrous, it doesn’t deserve comment.
It took me 3 years of reading and heavy thinking just to understand basic military tactics. Iraq is a little more than simple, as I see it.
Btw, read this, Book and companions.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/roe_rules_of_en.html
It talks about the same subject of “American training” or whatever. And blasts the notion apart. Well the notion that American military folks aren’t willing cause they can’t.
Y, it IS ridiculous that so many of our troops cannot go into a hot area & do their jobs. Instead, they have to observe certain rules (of engagement) such as “do not shoot until your’re shot AT!” Which is nuts! And smells so much like Viet Nam it’s downright scary.
War is war — and the same rules we have in a civilized society, simply DO NOT apply. They do not transfer. It’s criminal that our soldiers so often cannot forge a serious area & be RUTHLESS, the only language ensurgents understand. Will civilians also be hit? Sadly, yes — but that’s why it’s called a “war zone.” This ROE thing is almost like allowing the ACLU to come in & run our wars, which is totally insane.
If America wants victory & stability over there (& we NEED it) — if we want to give the Iraqi people any REAL chance for a future, this ROE situation has to change. Our soldiers have to be allowed to fight the fight! It’s also going to require a lot more troops than are currently there, to DO it.
The ACLU was already running Bush’s detainment camps, last time I checked. So the front line must be next.
Mudville also had up a nice stats sheet for troop collations.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/007297.html
“I would have prefered no American bodies in Iraq, the American bodies in Iraq are Bush’s and the conservatives idea.”
As others have said, united cats, I would have preferred no bodies ANYWHERE due to terrorism, even the American bodies in New York City. But that’s not the real world.
Who are YOU, ucat, to cry about bodies?
Our forces are all volunteer, you must know. They CHOOSE to defend us. And most of them DENIGRATE those like you who don’t support them: read their hundreds of mil blogs.
Ucat, I think yours are crocodile tears.
“It is sad (pathetic even) that the people who thought this invasion was such a grand idea are now blaming everyone on the planet but themselves for the predicted carnage that has ensued.”
The overthrow of Saddam was necessary. It has proved so– which is the truth you won’t admit. Wars are messy,
unitedcat(s). Grow up. Read up on your history. But I am glad to see you attacking those who cause the carnage, by the way (not).
No blaming needed or wanted. That’s the SICK game the Left/MSM/Dems have tortured us with for the last 3 years. THEY BLAME EVERYONE, but mostly Americans. BUT WHAT DO THEY DO?
THEY have done NOTHING to support America. Or to fight terrorism. WE all KNOW that.
Wow. Well, since you are all so good at putting words in my mouth I will leave you guys to argue with yourselves.
BB —Doug
Thank you.
As far as the “proof” cited above, nice example of cherry picking. One could write an infinitely longer list linking terror attacks to our erstwhile allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, why haven’t we invaded them to “protect” ourselves from terror? Maybe because this invasion is about imperialism and oil? JMO —Doug
Good point Doug.
No need to worry about JG, JJ, Y, and Z…they are a laughable group of Dubya Neo-Cons who won’t(or more likely can’t) answer the Question…or may be we should give them one more chance:
why haven’t we invaded them (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to “protect” ourselves from terror?
Because you haven’t joined the Dubya Neo-Cons yet, Big. Once you do that, we’ll invade them.
exactly Y, all you can do is make a joke….that’s why you’re laughable…yet you refuse to answer an honest and reasonable question.
why haven’t we invaded them (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to “protect” ourselves from terror?
By the way Y, no one ever really comments about anything on your blog.
Maybe you should call your blog “(0) Comments”
j/k buddy,
we go way back to like September, I’m just jealous because you have actually have a blog…even if no one ever goes there. maybe you can get JJ or JG or Z to spend some time there reaffirming your ideas.
why haven’t we invaded them (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to “protect” ourselves from terror?
I can’t believe how many juvenile out of high school ignoramuses think talking about the number of comments on my blog is an uber insult. They have obviously not learned verbal fencing or just failed it completely.
yet you refuse to answer an honest and reasonable question.
What’s not honest about saying that when domestic insurgents like you join the bandwagon, we can carry the winds of war to the entire globe as your side wanted in the beginning? Aren’t we stronger together than apart?
You can’t really expect us to invade at your whim while you’re trying to bite us in the ankles, Big. I know Socialism says you can get power for nothing, but you’re in Capital Land, Big.
Y, Take a deap breath.
Your blog is actually quite nice and the platform is very well laid-out and easy to use (much like BW’s).
Congratulations!
What game are you playing here, Big? I don’t get distracted that easily.