Join 3,556 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


How Al Qaeda Slipped Away
August 14, 2002 2:17 AM   Subscribe

How Al Qaeda Slipped Away "American officials concede that there was a mass escape from Tora Bora—as well as a broader exodus by various routes into Pakistan and Iran—but insist that Al Qaeda now is crippled and too busy running to do much damage. “Perhaps we could have got them wholesale,” says one senior Defense official. “Now we’re doing it retail. In the end, it doesn’t make much difference. We’re getting them.”" We might want to take care of this before we "invade" Iraq.
posted by owillis (14 comments total)

 
"With all the talk about how little evidence the Bush administration has tying Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks, we're more than a little surprised at how quickly reporters, not to mention the White House, seem to have forgotten about Salman Pak".

Seems to me that dozens of little viruses are every bit as nasty as one big one.
posted by hama7 at 2:41 AM on August 14, 2002


That second link is terrible. I had to side scroll to read it.
posted by Hall at 3:56 AM on August 14, 2002


That second link is terrible. I had to side scroll to read it.

Really? The whiterose link? No probs here. An excerpt:

"Anyone who wants the United States to start a war bears a heavy burden of proof: can we achieve the goal via war? is the goal worthwhile? is the goal achievable through no other means? is getting what we want worth the trouble it will cause us in the short and long terms? (for a start)."

Well, if the goal is preventing millions of American and other casualties, well then, what choice is there? It's not as if Hussein's crimes have gone unnoticed.
posted by hama7 at 4:38 AM on August 14, 2002


Unbelievable
posted by juicyraoul at 4:45 AM on August 14, 2002


Hey hey, let's call a spade a spade here. To be frank the people of the U.S as well as the esteemed administration headed by dubya do not give much of a toss about human rights abuses perpretrated by the iraqi regime, it is certainly not sufficent to agitate those hawks occupying the white house to start a major conflict. Yes there has been the no-fly zone over both northern and southern iraq to protect the kurdish inhabitants. But human rights abuses are not even a consideration when assessing whether war is a viable option. It smacks of bush playing to a increasingly pissed off domestic audience. Hey your pensions are worthless, hell let's kick some iraqi butt, things sure won't seem so bad then.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:03 AM on August 14, 2002


Al who? Oh yes, those "folks." Please go away now and don't bother me, you see I'm busy inking a pipeline deal here in Afghanistan and working on securing some oil fields in the Middle East and am much too busy for such details. :)

So does this mean they're hiding out in that bastion of democracy called Pakistan? Naaa...couldn't be, they've NEVER been guilty of harboring terrorists freedom fighters (Ronald Reagan explained the difference to me), have they?
posted by nofundy at 5:15 AM on August 14, 2002


I've said it before, I'll say it again. As long as the USA is out to invade in the name of human rights, maybe they should consider moving in to China, Zimbabwe, Greece, and Texas.
posted by Fabulon7 at 5:29 AM on August 14, 2002


...and the Kissinger house.
posted by ciderwoman at 5:49 AM on August 14, 2002


I was under the impression that Iraq wasn't a Islamic regime, similar to Saudi Arabia. If memory serves me correctly, didn't Iran have a dictator that the US supported until he was kicked out by Islamic fundamentalists?

That being said, isn't implementing an Islamic leader into every Arab state the goal of Al Qaeda? And by removing Saddam don't we make their goal that much easier to obtain?
posted by CrazyJub at 6:16 AM on August 14, 2002


In the end, it doesn?t make much difference.

Except, you know, financially...and in the number of American lives lost.

And by removing Saddam don't we make their goal that much easier to obtain?

This guy says absolutely not.
posted by rushmc at 8:27 AM on August 14, 2002


This guy says absolutely not.

That's an interesting opinion piece, but I don't see where he makes a compelling case that overthrowing Saddam will hamper Islamic fundamentalists, except in Iran. In fact, he seems to be making the opposite case for Saudi Arabia, and he doesn't think it matters who takes over in Iraq itself, as long as it's not Saddam.
posted by pitchblende at 9:08 AM on August 14, 2002


That Iraq story on Newsmax (agenda, no!) would be all well and good if 15 of the 19 hijackers hadn't come from Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that Bush has a better case for invading them than Iraq.
posted by owillis at 10:57 AM on August 14, 2002


As long as the USA is out to invade in the name of human rights, maybe they should consider moving in to China, Zimbabwe, Greece, and Texas. ...and the Kissinger house.


Not to re-state the obvious, as i got it off of today's MiFi, but please add to the list: Texas
posted by DenOfSizer at 1:30 PM on August 14, 2002


Attacking Saddam would undermine our antiterror efforts.
posted by homunculus at 1:00 PM on August 15, 2002


« Older RIAA mistaken, mp3s not the problem says new study...  |  Ed Headrick, the principal des... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments