| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Qaeda wants US to invade Iran |
| 2007-03-13 |
| A US military operation against Iran will play into the hands of America’s worst enemies according to Bruce Riedel of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, a leading think tank. He wrote on the interactive Washington Post site that Al Qaeda saw a war between America and Iran as its “fondest dream come true.” A war between the United States and Iran would be a tremendous strategic victory for Al Qaeda and anti-American forces because two of their most deadly enemies would stop each other. The Sunni Arab jihadi community would kill two birds with one stone, he added. Riedel noted that last month the new head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, issued a statement welcoming the surge of more American troops into Iraq. He said he looked forward to an American nuclear attack on Iran. For Al Qaeda, the American occupation of Iraq has been an opportunity to attack US forces in territory sympathetic to the terrorists. Osama welcomed the US invasion four years ago, and his lieutenants have openly called the occupation the best opportunity they have had since 9/11 to strike at Americans. The Middle East commentator pointed out that, for Al Qaeda, the downside of the American occupation of Iraq has been the increase in Iran’s influence in the region. Last November, another Al Qaeda leader in Iraq complained that, “The stupid Bush revived the glory of the old Persian Empire in a very short period of time.” The Sunni terrorists have deliberately sought to provoke a civil war between Iraqi Sunni and Shiite Muslims to create the quandary they hope will bring America to defeat, he wrote. However, they have been alarmed at the consequent growth in Tehran’s influence in the country. According to Riedel, “War between the Crusaders and the Safavids, as they call it, will only benefit the jihad against both. Al Qaeda would best be served by a full-scale invasion and occupation, similar to that in Iraq, which would expand the battlefield available to work against the US all the way from the Anbar province in the west to the Khyber Pass in the east. However, they seem to understand that the American military is already too over stretched to offer such an opening. Thus, they expect us to use nuclear weapons on Iran and have told Sunnis to evacuate towns close to N-installations. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #16 RD, trailing daughter #1 was willing to be satisfied with either one, so long as both clauses were consistent. Me? I only learn languages I can talk to living people in. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-13 22:48 |
| #15 That's the old Patton Quote, "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-03-13 21:09 |
| #14 LOL tw, we have everything at RBU..even Latin Scholars = WAY KOOL! is thisn correct then.. "Cuius testicles habet, habet cardeum et cerebellum" ? or thisn.. "Cuius testicles habes, habes cardeum et cerebellum" ? |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-13 18:42 |
| #13 She got home. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-13 15:32 |
| #12 'Habes' and 'habet' should have the same ending, if they are, as I suspect, referring to the same person. Otherwise, it is directly translated as, "Whose testicles you have, (he/she/it/one) has the heart and brain." -td#1 |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-13 15:31 |
| #11 "Cuius testicles habes, habet cardeum et cerebellum" I'm just guessing -- will check with Latin student trailing daughter #1 when she gets home from school -- but that looks like, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." Am I close, Harry Thinelet8011? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-13 15:01 |
| #10 Wow, HT8011, I've never heard Latin "sound" so beautiful, and I only made out 3 or 4 of the words, lol! |
| Posted by: BA 2007-03-13 13:47 |
| #9 There will be no need for an invasion of Iran. Ever heard the saying: "Cuius testicles habes, habet cardeum et cerebellum" And the US is slowly twisting them, in the grand perspective we are watching the same diplomatic and economic poetry that brought down the USSR. Beautifull. |
| Posted by: Harry Thinelet8011 2007-03-13 11:31 |
| #8 Or what a tangled web we weave... |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-03-13 11:16 |
| #7 Japan dared the US to invade as well. Didn't quite go that way now did it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-03-13 09:54 |
| #6 A US military operation against Iran will play into the hands of AmericaÂ’s worst enemies House Democrats? |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-03-13 09:45 |
| #5 Kinda predictable when Sunni savages destroy several million tons of skyscrapers housing 50,000 Americans that Sunni power is threatened. That the historical enemy, a rising Persian and Shiite power is the principal threat is just the extra sweet icing on the cake. In this several way knife fight, there is no payoff for America to take on all comers. Better to set historical enemies upon each others throats and then take out the winners and plunder them. I predict Shiite dirt farmers will be enjoying the pleasures of Sunni and Saudi princess sex slaves long before America takes out Iran. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-03-13 09:13 |
| #4 It's called reverse physcology. I still don't fully buy the Radical Shia verse Radical Sunni stuff. Personally I believe that is something the Muslim Dictators are trying to use to replace the Western hatred becuase we are calling em out on that part since 9-11. I find it somewhat hard to believe when the radicals are calling for unity, working coordinating thier actions like 04' Iraq Sadr/Zarkawi, and the biggest part to me is "Why is it that Shia Radicals instead of bombing the Sunni Radicals and vice versa instead just go kill eachothers moderates who are not at war but just doing daily life". NO my friends the radicals are killing eachothers opponents off, forcing fence sitters to thier side, getting browny points with the US media "ohhh the carnage" crap. If they really hated eachother and was a primary goal Sadr's offices would be carbombed not the University, radical Preachers on both sides would be turning up everywere not Moderate pro governement, the bodies found daily would not be random john does but would be in our databases as suspected or AS Jihadi's. And to no ones suprise the US media bites the enemy propoganda hook line and sinker. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2007-03-13 08:55 |
| #3 A US invasion of Iran would be desired by AQ - they benefit three ways: 1) They don't like Shia and we'd kill off a bunch, and 2) They don't like Americans and the Shia'd kill off some. 3) It would divide our attention and spread our forces. "expect us to use nuclear weapons " No, expect us to use weapons on nuclear installations - but same effect: nuclear contamination. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-13 07:15 |
| #2 "The stupid Bush revived the glory of the old Persian Empire in a very short period of time.” I didn't know the Ayatollah Khoumeini was W's cousin. I learn something every day. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-03-13 02:13 |
| #1 No need for invasion. Like Derbyshire said "Rubble don't make trouble". |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-03-13 00:09 |