How many al Qaeda, Saddamists (deck of 52), insurgents and terrorists
have the U.S. and coalition partners captured or killed since 9/11/01?

---

Request for Question Clarification by bobbie7-ga on 24 Jun 2006 17:37 PDT

Dear Hottalker,

Please let me know if the figures below would be a satisfactory answer
to your question.

Thank you, 
Bobbie7

------------------------------

Since 9/11 more than 5,000 al Qaeda members have been killed or
captured in 102 countries.

?An interview with Richard Miniter on the War on Terror, the media's
role in promoting terrorism, and the role of Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia.

According to Richard Miniter, an American investigative journalist who
is an expert on Islamic terrorism, the West is capable of winning the
war on terror. In fact, he thinks it is winning. Miniter, who is a
weekly guest on Fox News, has traveled extensively all over the globe
and was in Brussels last month on his way to Afghanistan. The Brussels
Journal interviewed him.

Rich Miniter: Yes, I think that on balance we are winning, I think
this for several reasons. Since 9/11 more than 5,000 al Qaeda members
have been killed or captured in 102 countries.?
 
Source: America Is Winning the War on Terror
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4519.html 


--------------------


IRAQI ?MOST WANTED" PLAYING CARDS

46 terrorists have been captured or killed from the most wanted playing cards.

 ?As of September, 2004,  43 of the 55 "Iraqi Most Wanted" had been
captured or killed.  Those cards with a known disposition are listed,
otherwise those "Still at Large" are listed?.

?As of March 1, 2005, 11 of the "Wanted" were still "At Large". 

Legion XXIV 
http://www.legionxxiv.org/iraqmostwanted/

---

Clarification of Question by hottalker-ga on 24 Jun 2006 18:19 PDT

Bobbie7-ga found the al Qaeda numbers 9/11/01 thru Summer of '05, but
how many since then?

Bobbie7-ga found the Deck of 52 numbers as of March 1, 2005, but how
many since then?

Also, still would like a ballpark figure on insurgents captured or
killed in Iraq and of terrorists captured or killed worldwide post
9/11/01.  Can you help fill the gaps?

Much appreciated!

---

Request for Question Clarification by bobbie7-ga on 24 Jun 2006 20:33 PDT

Dear Hottalker,

Unfortunately I was not able to locate more up to date figures for you.

In any case this question is still open and hopefully another
researcher will be able to provide you with a complete answer to your
question.

Sincerely, 
Bobbie7

---

Clarification of Question by hottalker-ga on 25 Jun 2006 19:09 PDT

Thanks for trying.  Any other takers? Al Qaeda & Deck of 52 9/11/01 to
current.  Insurgent/terrorists best estimate.  Thanks for the efforts.

I wonder if the amount of members dead/captured could serve to measure
"success". Success, after all, is when violence is contained, which
hasn't happened yet.

Al Qaeda member among our audience will have to forgive me for my
allegory, but if you exterminate 1,000 ants, it doesn't matter, if
there are 100,000 in the colony.

Which University do you teach at?  Only someone from the isolated
fantasy land of academia could suggest it is not a "success" when
cold-blooded killers are killed or captured!  Uff-da!

In a war, the 'cold-blooded killers'  are on both sides.
They may not start that way. During the war more and more people
 get drawn into the conflict. They get more cold-blooded about 
the business of killing as  war is progressing. So real question is not 
'How many were killed already' - on side A and side B ?
but how many will join and be killed before the war ends.

To estimate numbers for  future war one can  look at the past:

Conflict: Avg. Killed per Month

WWI: 2816 
WWII: 6639 
Korean War: 909 
Vietnam War: 526

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=984

Current war, Iraqi war as part of terror is not over ,
perhaps not in the full swing as yet, so we cannot 
 average numbers per that conflict.


Here is an academic quote for you

"..However, the ability to allow oneself to be caught up in the mimetic 
contagion depends upon a sense of righteousness, or self-righteousness. One 
needs to feel that attacking, killing is good or necessary..."

http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg08611.shtml

To estimate how  isolated fantasyland of academia is, consult the recent polls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_natsecurity_062606.htm

Hottalker, 

Since unlike you, I have some active experience in counterterrorism
activity and research, I'll tell you only that: the only cases, where
terrorist organisations have been eliminated was either through
de-legitimisation of them and their action in their potential support
population (this will not be done through turning people into martyrs,
especially not if civilians are killed as well); and by
de-legitimisation of their ideology (again, this has nothing to do
with direct military action). Killing terrorists is in the best case
treating a symptom without solving the problem. Perhaps the only
?active? means you can add to the list of effective measures is
finding ways to block finances and communications. However, this is
usually done by intelligence people and bankers, not by GI Joe or
James Bond. Oh yeah, the same analysts, sitting at their office desks,
that people like to dismiss.

The terrorists are among us, how can we win? Heres a little comment
from Anthony Mundine On the war on terror, just to let you guys know
what I'm talking about for those who have no idea who he is, Mundine
is a super-middle weight boxer and is also a muslim "idealist"...
Anyway he is in our (Australian) society and he isn't really part of a
minority group, anyway this is what he has to say about 9/11...

"I really feel that it's not our problem. They call it an act of
terrorism but if you understand the religion and our way of life it's
not about terrorism, it's about fighting for God's laws and America's
brought it upon themselves (for) what they've done in history and so
on."

What a Dick hey?
No Anthony... Not every muslim is killing thousands of innocent people
for no reason only a few are... and I hope Danny Green smashes you for
being such a pig next time he can... Thats why I think If anything we
are loosing this war, how can you kill an Ideal? It's like trying to
kill the english language...

There will always be somone... Thats what I'm saying...

woody101 wrote 
" Thats why I think If anything we
are loosing this war, how can you kill an Ideal? It's like trying to
kill the english language..."

 I get a bit confused here 'which war'? The hunting down the terorists who
 came to a foreign land, to NYC and killed people they do not even know for
 some abstract confused reasons -

or war in Iraq (or the next one in Iran) ??

  If someone comes to a foreign country in violation of the international law
 and starts killing people who never did anything to his or her country,
 he or she is either a terorist or an agressor - depending on size of
his or her group.
 
  To kill the ideal of those whose freedom is being taken aways is very dificult
  History shows to ways:

1) Let the people to follow their silly ideals and they will eventually learn -
that happened with communism.
2) You go there and kill most of peope in the occupied country. That
often last for a generation, but unless you kill all - the next
generation still remembers
the genocide. E.g  Armenia and Turkey. I do not believe that american
people would go for a genocide - so the it is wery unlikely that war
in Iraq will end differently from the Vietnam war. I not sure who
'won' bat the idea of self-determinations surely survived.

Is war in English language next? After Iran? I heard that some people
use it to express doubts about the official  policies. That surely
cannot be tolerated,
but to try to kill such a beautiful language because of few miscreants ??
Perhaps best policy is to be selective about which ideas we want to kill,
by killing the people who belief in them, and which we want destroy by debate,
and which we can let die a natural death?

Hedgie