How many al Qaeda do there have to be?

| August 9, 2011

Another of those non-veterans writing at Veterans Today is Sibel Edmonds who apparently has never had anything to do with veterans according to her biography – only marginally less-qualified than senior editor Gordon Duff. Yet, like Duff, the 18-month E-3 TOC Rat, suddenly she’s an expert on military affairs.

Today she wonders how many actual al Qaeda terrorists we’re fighting in Afghanistan. of course, she gives the Taliban a pass, because their numbers would screw up her contention that we’re only battling a few al Qaeda operatives.

Currently we have less than 200 detainees at Guantanamo most of whom have not been proven guilty of being ‘Al Qaeda terrorists.’ Let’s be even more generous and count in those detained in other US military prisons like Bagram. Again, we are looking at 500 or so prisoners none of whom having ever been charged; none of whom legally found to be an Al Qaeda terrorist.

The key phrase here is “legally found to be an Al Qaeda” because, again, if we were to recognize that without a trial, nothing is certain, she sounds like she has a valid point.

Then she compares our military expenditures during the Cold War to the wars we’re currently fighting in the middle east. Of course, we also can’t count the war in Iraq as a war against al Qaeda, or the war we’re fighting in Pakistan – even though we were and are actually battling al Qaeda in both of those countries, but for Edmonds’ math to work out, we can’t count fighting al Qaeda outside of Afghanistan.

OK, let’s accept all of Edmonds’ restrictions to arrive at her total of al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Well, she never mentions an actual number, that would require a little more than just empty blathering. But here’s my question to Sibel; how many do they need? It only took 19 al Qaeda members to inflict more damage and kill more American people than the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

I think it would be more appropriate for Sibel to investigate how many actual veterans work at the web magazine called Veterans Today.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Shitbags

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NHSparky

Someone should explain to Sibel that according to the Geneva Convention, since they’re not representing any state and are essentially partisan fighters in civilian clothes, the only “RIGHT” they have under the 1949 GC is a double-tap to the back of the head.

Old Trooper

I’ve made that same point, Sparky, but the drooling moonbats can’t wrap their 3 brain cells around that. I have heard the “international law” meme so many times that I finally asked which “international laws” were we violating by holding non-uniformed enemy combatants indefinitely? Did we let German and Japanese prisoners out during the war? Did we hold trials for them in civilian courts? Were we obligated to do so?

Non-uniformed enemy combatants are entitled to a smoke, pancake, and a lead lobotomy and that’s pretty much it.

15D AZNG

Remember, the vast majority of people in this country are sooo afraid to say what is necessary to get the job done. We want to be nice, coddle people, and make sure they feel good instead of going in and kicking them in the ass. We re getting so politically correct its not even funny anymore.

JA Yossarian

For what it’s worth, there are a few people at Guantanamo who have been charged and convicted of crimes that require the element of being a part of al Qaeda. Right now a guy named al Bahlul is serving a life sentence. Six others have been charged and are pending referral to trial. Splitting hairs, I know, but thought I would provide a slightly more adequate assessment of her theories.

Doc Bailey

I made the same argument OT, and Sparky. I was refuted that factually there are no actual “illegal fighter” or combatant anywhere in 1949 GC. I refuted that indeed it does.

A group has THREE DAYS to mark themselves with uniform or national colors etc. There are great examples of what a legal combatant is, and who non-combatants are, and the protections owed to them, also great length is taken to tell how they should be marked (as should hospitals and medical personnel).

Also a lot of liberals forget about sieges. What we SHOULD have done in Falluja is turned the civilians back, and let them eat the food up, its pretty callous but it actually decreases casualties in the end. Of course Bush would have been impeached had he actually done that.

CI

I’m not the least bit concerned about legality and the GC in this case, but I’m not in favor of expending so much critical mass to battle insurgents and the few al-Qa’ida who venture into our battlespace…instead of a concerted effort to destroy the organization where they are?

The hypothesis of a propaganda victory if/when we withdraw pales in comparison to the incitement for jihad that our presence enables. That coupled with AQ’s strategic goal of miring us militarily in a Muslim land….we’re playing by the wrong book.

NHSparky

And another issue with which you can pound over the heads of the brain-dead libtards:

1–Ex Parte Quirin.
2–Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (bullshit ruling, but whatever.)
3–Military Commissions Act of 2006.

NO, there has not been a successful challenge to it. Anyone who tries to invoke the supremacy clause is going to also have to accept Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, meaning that either Al Qaeda or Taliban captured are NOT entitled to POW or protected status.

No cherry picking there, boys and girls.

DaveO

“The key phrase here is “legally found to be an Al Qaeda” because, again, if we were to recognize that without a trial, nothing is certain, she sounds like she has a valid point.”

That is the crux of the problem. Membership in a Jihadist organization is akin to being a member of an extended family. Joining one makes one a member of, and incurs obligations to all jihadist organizations. Perhaps re-reading “The Godfather” is in order when trying to understand the concept.

To say that jihadists are separate, distinct groups, is after America’s history with Islam (a little over 222 years to date), the very definition of stupid.

Cass

At peak on 9/10 AQ numbered at most 1000. YES, 1000!
Lsst year Panetta estimated 50, all in Pakistan..correctly in Pushtoonstan east of the Durand Line. Late Gen Jones said 100. Last week WashPost estmated 300 globally.
All the pain inflicted on us, Iraq and A’stan? Done by our elites, who unwittingly or not have been AQ’s force multipliers.

And our brass has proved to the world that they are the most incompetent and corrupt ever. Especially in A’stan, where the Taleban numbers only 25,000.

Do your math