Justin Logan makes a good, if provocative, point about the president's overblown rhetoric on Iraq has the effect of amplifying Osama bin Laden's propaganda. We shouldn't be sending people the message that al-Qaeda really is on the verge of seizing control over Iraq's oil resources and building a universal Caliphate. The people who blow themselves up for al-Qaeda's sake are murdering people, but they're not accomplishing anything and they're certainly not right around the corner from world domination and people need to know that.
« The Declining Cost of Pot Roast | Main | Where It Hurts »
Amplifying Propaganda
29 Aug 2007 04:07 pm
Comments (20)
“When people overdo it about terrorism, terrorists actually win. You’re sort of like becoming agents and instruments of the terrorists.”
-- Rudy Giuliani, 1999
Wow, Logan's post was really, really dumb.
Logan writes, in response to Bush's claim that extremists could take over Iraq's oil, "Out of the 20-30,000 people we have in custody in Iraq, 130 of them are non-Iraqi." So what? Is Logan just not aware that Al Qaeda in Iraq contains many... Iraqis? Is Logan unaware that al Qaeda in Iraq already took over major parts of Iraq, until we booted them? Logan's ignorance is astounding. Logan also writes "Can anyone imagine the gang of idiots currently slaughtering innocent Iraqis with car bombs trying to run the oil infrastructure of a country the size of Iraq?" Why not? The previous gang of idiots who slaughtered innocent Iraqis ran Iraq's oil infrastructure just fine.
I like Cato, but sometimes they come up with some pretty idiotic blog posts.
Everything this administration has done since the invasion of Iraq has helped Al Quada.
They are co-dependents.
i have to compliment Al on a clever reversal: the historic war-enabler remark has to do with all the foreign AQ fighters infilitrating into iraq (which some on the right applauded with the "flypaper theory"), but al smoothly turns this notion on its head! well done, Al!
more seriously, of course, the iraqi AQ members (insofar as we have a handle on who they are and how many they number, which isn't very far at all) are only, at most, ambiguously connected to our bete noir AQ.
that said, let's get to the serious point: the notion that because saddam was a bloodthirsty fascist dictator, he had no professionals who worked for him.
nice try, Al, but no....
that said, let's get to the serious point: the notion that because saddam was a bloodthirsty fascist dictator, he had no professionals who worked for him.
That's the reverse of my point. Of course Saddam had professionals working for him. And so would the al Qaeda in Iraq Islamists should they come to power in Iraq. Logan's statement that he can't imagine how the Islamists would control the oil is just odd.
Wow, Al thinks al-Qaeda in Iraq could successfully operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. Remind me again who the clueless one is.
No. Again, I think that al Qaeda in Iraq could employ people to successfully operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. Which is no different that what Saddam did.
Maybe I'm missing something. Why is it that al Qaeda in Iraq couldn't do what Saddam did?
I think that al Qaeda in Iraq could employ people to successfully operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. Which is no different that what Saddam did.
Even dictatorships take a while to structure, Al. You'd think this would be clearest to a conservative.
"Why is it that al Qaeda in Iraq couldn't do what Saddam did?"
Al Qaeda is like the Republican Party: they're great with politics, but they have problems in actually governing.
It hardly matters whether a hypothetical AQI government could run the oil industry, since there is no way in hell AQI is ever going to take control over Iraq. They can't beat the Sunni tribes, and they sure as hell can't beat the Shiites. And they are losing to the Sunni tribes, right? Isn't that why the Anbar Awakening is so awesome?
Al, Saddam actually, you know, ran the country. He had an education system that worked (high level of literacy); he had a medical system that worked; he had a system that maintained an army north of 400K; he had a party structure; he produced more electrical power; he even had an oil bureaucracy that produced oil (although didn't particularly maintain the infrastructure).
AQ in Iraq is a brand new organization that thus far has shown an ability to manufacture car bombs. it's a big leap from there to running a modern oil field, much less a whole country.
plus what some call me tim and petey said....
They can't beat the Sunni tribes, and they sure as hell can't beat the Shiites. And they are losing to the Sunni tribes, right? Isn't that why the Anbar Awakening is so awesome?
They are losing to the Sunni tribes becuase the Sunni tribes asked for our help! Prior to our help, al Qaeda in Iraq most certainly did take over much of Anbar. Which is, of course, Bush's exact point: if the Democrats force us to leave, then we leave Iraq vulnerable to al Qaeda in Iraq taking over, just as they did in Anbar when we were not able to help the Sunni tribes.
Al, if you have been reading the news, it is apparent that WE, the US, cannot at present, effectively mange the oilfields of Iraq.
Do you really credit this ragtag band of thugs as having greater operational and resource sophistication than the United States of America?
I mean, sure they are effective at creating IEDs, but remember, the Explosive Devices are Improvised precisely because they do not have the capacities we do (i.e. mass producing and deploying advanced weapons systems). Al Qaeda's "Improvised National Petroleum Infrastructure" would look like a Mad Max movie at best.
no, al, aq in iraq did not "take over" in anbar. within the loosely labelled insurgency were a variety of groups, inclusive of aq in iraq. more moderate elements of the insurgency, not wanting to see aq in iraq gain a foothold and move to establish a more theocratic state, cleverly played the desperate for good news americans eager to paint the entire problem in iraq as rooted in aq, for assistance in beating down the aq in iraq elements.
and that was an aq in iraq stronghold for god's sake.
so it's a far cry from that to saying that aq in iraq had "taken over" in anbar, and it's a further cry still that if we left iraq, aq in iraq would "take over" the country.
provocative, point
Obvious point, more like. And hardly penetrating or new. Petey and NO are exactly right:
Al Qaeda is like the Republican Party: they're great with politics, but they have problems in actually governing.
[GOP and AQ] are co-dependent(s).
Maybe I'm missing something. Why is it that al Qaeda in Iraq couldn't do what Saddam did?
I don't know, Al. Why is it that the United States of America can't do what Saddam did?
Al, every second you waste here is a second you'll have spent failing to learn how to operate your 30/30 properly. and when the al-queda invasion finally happens, you'll be that much less prepared to defend your home against the dozens of al queda loyalists rushing to take over your state.
Not least of all those thinking about blowing themselves up.
"Even the Great Satan itself admits that we are mere martyrs away from victory!"
Maybe we could convince Al to learn to blow himself up when Al Qaeda rules the US?
I mean, the Repubs are always saying we need to lower ourselves to use the tactics of the enemy, like torture. Why not suicide bombing?
I'm sure we could find literally thousands, scores of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of right wing Christians we could brainwash into blowing themselves up in Mecca or Tehran.
Hell, I'd pay to see that!
I have to say that from the standpoint of a rational terrorist, suicide bombing is not the smartest tactic in the world - unless of course you're just getting rid of the expendables - of which there appear to be no limit on either side of the "clash of civilizations."
So let's get rid of some of our expendables.
Who are the real "suicide bombers" - the US GIs who hang out and allow themselves to get blown up by IEDs or the fanatical Islamists who blow themselves up?
Comments closed September 12, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
well, but if people "knew" that, then what would george bush have to say about national security matters? surely you don't think it's more important that people have the facts than that bush have the ability to continue to play rhetorical games for another 500 days or so, do you?
Posted by howard | August 29, 2007 3:59 PM