Khaled said:
^^ i don't think we should look further than al quaeda.
I guess the jordanian's support was useless to them, so it doesn't stand in te way. After all, Jordan is known in the Arab World as nothing but Israel's buffer zone.
Also, you guys should understand how this works by now.
These attacks will have one of two outcomes.
1- Jordan will be less inclined to deal with the states and Israel, and would rather stay out of the conflict (unlikely)
2- Jordan will strengthen its ties with the US, US and Israel will start having a bigger role in Jordan, Increasing the chances of conflicts between Americans on one hand, and Palestinians/terrorists on the other hand.
The second scenario is more likely, because Israel's buffer zone in the region will be at risk.
I agree, but you seem to think I was pointing the finger at Israel.I merely said that the attacks were carried by outsiders.Give it a while and the Jordanians and Iraqis in Jordan will clash, things arent looking too good between them.The thing is, the 4 bombers were Iraqi, and things are already tense between the Jordanians and Iraqis because a Jordanian blew himself up and killed 113 Iraqis.An upturn against the Iraqis was expected, so this leads to our question:Who would do such a thing?
Morris said:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been fighting against Jordan since the date of his group's inception. For years al-Zarqawi has had a Jordanian death sentence hanging over him should he ever be extradited.
And many Iraqis disapprove of the occupation, so why does al-Zarqawi's group continue to target Iraqi civilians? Or are you implicitly blaming Israel for that too?
Trust me, I know a shitload more about Abu-Musaab without that wiki link.I happen to know an intelligence officer that tortured him.Abu-Musaab wouldnt miss a chance to strike at the Jordanian government, but not the people.Why would he order a wedding to be blown up?Why would he order the Days Inn hotel to be hit in any way, even if it meant just hitting the gate (that's what happened anyways), even if it meant there was a less chance a Jew or an American would be standing out the gates than in the lobby?Plus, I never heard it was a favourite meeting spot for foreign businessmen or diplomats.It's mostly teenage Saudis who stay there.The Radisson SAS is something else, but it was the wedding that was blown up, wasn't it?And it was near the doors of the hall where the wedding was supposed to take place.
Wouldn't it make more sense if Abu-Mussab carried the attacks on the Israeli Embassy, which is like 2 miles away from the Days Inn?If they could've just entered the Days Inn Lobby and blew it up, but they chose to blow up the gate and killed innocent civilians, surely they got no problem striking at the Israeli Embassy gate?The US Embassy is a different story, cause it's guarded with tanks, Marines, the Jordanian army and Jordanian intelligence and it has a street blocked.
It could be Abu-Mussab for all I know, but that would come off as a great disappointment.If his plan was to kill 33 Jordanians, he might as well blew up a mall.
You're confusing Shiite Iraqis with Sunnis.Abu-Mussab waged war on Shiite Iraqis cause of their
collaboration with the enemy, so how can they have possibly disapproved of the occupation?